On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy
decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil servants. He >>>> refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. >>>>Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision (or >>>> ‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional >>>> circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give
informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under
paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide
surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as they're >>told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it
is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of
the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy
decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. Views >>>>> can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision
(or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional >>>>> circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give
informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under >>>>> paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide
surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as they're
told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it
is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of
the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him from
making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be counterproductive, is part and parcel.
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy
decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. Views >>>>> can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision
(or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional >>>>> circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give
informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under >>>>> paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide
surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as they're
told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it
is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of
the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job,
and preventing him from
making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be counterproductive, is part and parcel.
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy >>>>>> decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’.
Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy
decision (or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional >>>>>> circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give
informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under >>>>>> paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide
surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And
sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as
they're told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
That doesn't mean "agreed by civil servants".
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it
is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of
the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him from
making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be
counterproductive, is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
On 24/04/2023 13:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy >>>>>> decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’.
Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy
decision (or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional >>>>>> circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give
informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under >>>>>> paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide
surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And
sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
That's not a civil service matter but a political one between the
minister and his boss, the PM. In his Department the minister is the boss.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as
they're told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
Civil servants have no mandate to decide or agree any policy matters.
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it
is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
Civil servants can advise. But what the minister decides goes, and it
is the civil servants' job to implement it.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of
the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job,
No it isn't. That's his own and his special advisors' job.
and preventing him from making stupid decisions, or wanting things
which will actually be counterproductive, is part and parcel.
On 24/04/2023 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23 Apr >>> 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy >>>>>>> decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil servants. He >>>>>>> refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision (or >>>>>>> ‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional
circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give >>>>>>> informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under >>>>>>> paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to 'suggest'
action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to decide >>>> surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And
sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against, arises >>> from a recent election manifesto.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as they're told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
That doesn't mean "agreed by civil servants".
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but it is not
their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is attempting to
do something that's illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the minister >>>> why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors advise, ministers
decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies of the >>>> elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him from making
stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be counterproductive,
is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
It's their job to run the country, not to babysit an incompetent minister who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.
On 24/04/2023 18:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/04/2023 13:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy >>>>>>> decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. >>>>>>> Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy
decision (or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional
circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give >>>>>>> informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation
(under
paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to
decide surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And
sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
That's not a civil service matter but a political one between the
minister and his boss, the PM. In his Department the minister is the
boss.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as
they're told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
Civil servants have no mandate to decide or agree any policy matters.
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but
it is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
Civil servants can advise. But what the minister decides goes, and it
is the civil servants' job to implement it.
It's also their job to tell him if he is breaking the law or giving
confusing or contradictory instructions.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies
of the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job,
No it isn't. That's his own and his special advisors' job.
SPADS have no legal or constitutional standing. They exist to flatter
his vanity and try to manage his public image in a favourable light, and
give him advice when he's too stupid to figure stuff out for himself.
On 24/04/2023 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <kak6gkFrd1hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:53:59 on Sun, 23
Apr 2023, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 23/04/2023 04:27, RJH wrote:
On 22 Apr 2023 at 22:58:20 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2023 10:41 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2023 17:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2023 05:02 pm, The Todal wrote:
The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy >>>>>>> decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil
servants. He
refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. >>>>>>> Views can,
however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy
decision (or
‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional
circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give >>>>>>> informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation
(under
paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it.
Civil servants also have a duty to do what they are told to do by
Parliament and by ministers.
Not in my expereince. It's far from unknown for politicians to
'suggest' action that can be illegal or counter to policy.
Counter to whose policy? That's what the minister is there to
decide surely, so what he wants *is* the policy.
Not if the PM has announced that a different policy is current. And
sometimes, just sometimes, the policy they are trying to go against,
arises from a recent election manifesto.
In that case it's the duty of the civil servant to not do as
they're told.
It's their duty to implement the minister's policy as best they can.
Once the policy has been agreed.
That doesn't mean "agreed by civil servants".
The civil servants must not themselves act illegally of course but
it is not their job to decide if a policy itself is illegal.
They do that all the time! Pretty bad form if your minister is
attempting to do something that's illegal.
If they feel it may be, their Sir Humphrey should explain to the
minister why it's a 'very brave decision, minister'. But advisors
advise, ministers decide, and ministers carry the can.
It is not the function of the civil service to thwart the policies
of the elected minister and usurp the democratic process.
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him from
making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be
counterproductive, is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
It's their job to run the country, not to babysit an incompetent
minister who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.
On 24/04/2023 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him from
making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually be
counterproductive, is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
It's their job to run the country, not to babysit an incompetent
minister who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.
On 24/04/2023 19:14, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him
from making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually
be counterproductive, is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
It's their job to run the country, not to babysit an incompetent
minister who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.
It's not their job to keep the minister in his job. That's the concern
of the PM.
It's not the job of the minister to allow civil servants to throw
*their* toys out of their prams.
The Chinese emperors knew how to deal with their recalcitrant mandarins.
On 24/04/2023 19:14, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2023 01:24 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Part of their role is to keep him in his job, and preventing him
from making stupid decisions, or wanting things which will actually
be counterproductive, is part and parcel.
How very altruistic of them.
It's their job to run the country, not to babysit an incompetent
minister who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.
It's not their job to keep the minister in his job. That's the concern
of the PM.
It's not the job of the minister to allow civil servants to throw
*their* toys out of their prams.
The Chinese emperors knew how to deal with their recalcitrant mandarins.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:36:16 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,575 |