UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Novus America]

Okay sure, but if you are talking about the Privy Council making decisions that is different than Elizabeth making decisions.

I said she has the experience, experience also requires a ruler to have the best people for the job by them, which is what the Privy council used to be, and sometimes still is.

But it is still true to say she has more experience than the current cabinet, having reigned over 14 different UK governments in her lifetime.

The Privy Council is basically the PM and cabinet, plus a few other people, who the PM de facto appoints, and the PM determines the composition of the meetings so....
It is basically controlled by the PM. It is not an independent council of the “best people”.

Anyways yes she has experience but an experience of a different sort.
An electrical engineer who has spent 50 years in electrical engineering has experience in electrical engineering, but that does not mean he or she would be a good doctor.

What she does and has experience doing is very different than what the PM does and has experience doing.

We have no idea if she actually knows how to run the country, or run a government, or make good legislation or policy, or do it well and in the way you want.

[The Archregimancy]

Enough with these stupid parties and give Queen a chance to govern.

I don't believe that Dr May or Mr Taylor are interested; and Mr Deacon retired following Mr Bulsara's death.


(Yes, there was a slightly naughty editing out of a definite article in the above quote)

[Celritannia]

I said she has the experience, experience also requires a ruler to have the best people for the job by them, which is what the Privy council used to be, and sometimes still is.

But it is still true to say she has more experience than the current cabinet, having reigned over 14 different UK governments in her lifetime.

The Privy Council is basically the PM and cabinet, plus a few other people, who the PM de facto appoints, and the PM determines the composition of the meetings so....
It is basically controlled by the PM. It is not an independent council of the “best people”.

Anyways yes she has experience but an experience of a different sort.
An electrical engineer who has spent 50 years in electrical engineering has experience in electrical engineering, but that does not mean he would be a good doctor.

What she does and has experience doing is very different than what the PM does and has experience doing.

We have no idea if she actually knows how to run the country, or run a government, or make good legislation or policy, or do it well and in the way you want.

It is far more than "the Cabinet and a few others".
Take a look at the list, all the appointments to it are not made solely by the PM, but the positions people have held in government or the judiciary. Which is why the Shadow Cabinet are automatic members of the Privy Council. If the Privy Council was up to the current PM, the Shadow Cabinet would not be in there.

The Privy Council of the United Kingdom[n 1] is a formal body of advisers to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. Its membership mainly comprises senior politicians who are current or former members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20Privy%20Council%20of%20the,or%20the%20House%20of%20Lords.

The Queen has been at the forefront of politics since the mid-50s, so in your r analogy, she would still be an engineer, but an older theoretical based engineer.

Again, as Vass has pointed out, the PM informs the duties of the Government each week.

I am not saying it's the way I want it or not, I am simply saying she has more experience than the current government.

[The Archregimancy]

I said she has the experience, experience also requires a ruler to have the best people for the job by them, which is what the Privy council used to be, and sometimes still is.

But it is still true to say she has more experience than the current cabinet, having reigned over 14 different UK governments in her lifetime.

The Privy Council is basically the PM and cabinet, plus a few other people, who the PM de facto appoints, and the PM determines the composition of the meetings

This isn't quite right.

Privy Counsellors serve for life, and while senior cabinet members are usually appointed as a matter of course, so are senior opposition figures and senior figures in the devolved administrations. Several senior civil servants are also typically members. The Speaker, Lord Speaker, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London automatically become members on taking office. So it's much more than 'the PM and cabinet'

There's also a distinction between the montlhy working meetings of the Privy Council and formal full meetings of the Council.

Working meetings of the Privy Council are typically attended by four ministers (generally those with matters before the council) and presided over by the Lord President (currently Jacob Rees-Mogg). These are likely what you had in mind with your post.

However, full meetings of the Council are held whenever there's a significant change in the status of the Crown. This usually means the death of the monarch, though they would also be required for the abdication or engagement of a monarch, or for approving a regency. The latter three are obviously unusual.

In addition to working meetings and full meetings, there are a number of Privy Council committees that are shared among all councillors, not just those who are members of the current government. Some of these are a bit arcane (the committee governing the use of wafer seals as a substitute for the Great Seal last met in the 1980s), but others have a more practical function, such as the Judicial Committee.

Somewhat separately from the above committees, the Cabinet is itself technically a committee of the Privy Council, though obviously where real power lies. This might also be what you were perhaps thinking of.

Finally, many independent inquiries are in fact ad hoc committees of privy counsellors. See, for example, the Chilcot Inquiry.

So the Privy Council is far more wide-ranging than your post suggests, but it's important to divide its everyday function in government from its broader residual responsibilities (whether practical or ceremonial).

[Novus America]

The Privy Council is basically the PM and cabinet, plus a few other people, who the PM de facto appoints, and the PM determines the composition of the meetings so....
It is basically controlled by the PM. It is not an independent council of the “best people”.

Anyways yes she has experience but an experience of a different sort.
An electrical engineer who has spent 50 years in electrical engineering has experience in electrical engineering, but that does not mean he would be a good doctor.

What she does and has experience doing is very different than what the PM does and has experience doing.

We have no idea if she actually knows how to run the country, or run a government, or make good legislation or policy, or do it well and in the way you want.

It is far more than "the Cabinet and a few others".
Take a look at the list, all the appointments to it are not made solely by the PM, but the positions people have held in government or the judiciary. Which is why the Shadow Cabinet are automatic members of the Privy Council. If the Privy Council was up to the current PM, the Shadow Cabinet would not be in there.

The Privy Council of the United Kingdom[n 1] is a formal body of advisers to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. Its membership mainly comprises senior politicians who are current or former members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20Privy%20Council%20of%20the,or%20the%20House%20of%20Lords.

The Queen has been at the forefront of politics since the mid-50s, so in your r analogy, she would still be an engineer, but an older theoretical based engineer.

Again, as Vass has pointed out, the PM informs the duties of the Government each week.

I am not saying it's the way I want it or not, I am simply saying she has more experience than the current government.

“The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[20] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government.”
So it is the PM who appoints them, not necessarily the current PM, but who was the PM. Sure there is a lot of traditions the PM follows when making the appointments like including the opposition and such but still it cannot be said to function as a fully independent body from the PM at all.

Sure they give her a weekly briefing, but that does not make for experience making decisions on her own, or writing legislation on her own, or making policy. Even if you religiously read and watch the political news and proceedings every day, that does not make you an experienced politician.

We still have no idea if she is actually remotely capable of running a government because although no doubt she has knowledge, she lacks the practical experience as you acknowledge. She has never had any experience whatsoever running a government without a PM, Cabinet and Parliament (or actually running a government at all, because she does not do the day to day functions of a PM, she has no experience being a PM or other minister).

[Celritannia]

It is far more than "the Cabinet and a few others".
Take a look at the list, all the appointments to it are not made solely by the PM, but the positions people have held in government or the judiciary. Which is why the Shadow Cabinet are automatic members of the Privy Council. If the Privy Council was up to the current PM, the Shadow Cabinet would not be in there.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20Privy%20Council%20of%20the,or%20the%20House%20of%20Lords.

The Queen has been at the forefront of politics since the mid-50s, so in your r analogy, she would still be an engineer, but an older theoretical based engineer.

Again, as Vass has pointed out, the PM informs the duties of the Government each week.

I am not saying it's the way I want it or not, I am simply saying she has more experience than the current government.

“The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[20] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government.”
So it is the PM who appoints them, not necessarily the current PM, but who was the PM. Sure there is a lot of traditions the PM follows when making the appointments like including the opposition and such but still it cannot be said to function as a fully independent body from the PM at all.

Sure they give her a weekly briefing, but that does not make for experience making decisions on her own, or writing legislation on her own, or making policy. Even if you religiously read and watch the political news and proceedings every day, that does not make you an experienced politician.

We still have no idea if she is actually remotely capable of running a government because although no doubt she has knowledge, she lacks the practical experience as you acknowledge. She has never had any experience whatsoever running a government without a PM, Cabinet and Parliament (or actually running a government at all, because she does not do the day to day functions of a PM, she has no experience being a PM or other minister).

I'm going to refer to Arch's response to this, since he masterfully went into detail on the topic, more than I could.
Although, you did miss out the full quote:

The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[20] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. The majority of appointees are senior politicians, including Ministers of the Crown, the few most senior figures of the Loyal Opposition, the Parliamentary leader of the third-largest party, a couple of the most senior figures in the devolved British governments and senior politicians from Commonwealth countries. Besides these, the Council includes a very few members of the Royal Family (usually the consort and heir apparent only), a few dozen judges from British and Commonwealth countries, a few clergy and a small number of senior civil servants.

So even if HM Gov advisers the Monarch on who should can be members, it is still based on which individuals hold what senior positions of the entire country, and sometime the Commonwealth Realm. So, again, not exactly true.

Did I say make legislation on her own? I said more experience than the members of the cabinet. It's the civil service that make and understand the legislation, and are also far more experienced in policy making than any cabinet. It's the Civil Service that is always there, while a cabinet can change regularly. It's no different than with the Queen, and if in a hypothetical situation a cabinet was not there, it would be the Civil Service that would advise and address the situation to the Queen, and vice versa.
Experience is also about learning from past mistakes and problems, which this current cabinet has not done. Governments don't even have to listen to the concerns experienced Civil Servants have on a particular topic who have seen trial and errors or successes of various policies. Take Brexit as an example, the sheer amount of stress put on the Civil Service by the Tory Government despite their warning shows little understanding or experience from the Government.

No, but again, that's what a civil service is for. In fact, without a civil service there is no functioning government either. You can have a civil service without a government, but not a government without the civil service.

[Novus America]

“The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[20] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government.”
So it is the PM who appoints them, not necessarily the current PM, but who was the PM. Sure there is a lot of traditions the PM follows when making the appointments like including the opposition and such but still it cannot be said to function as a fully independent body from the PM at all.

Sure they give her a weekly briefing, but that does not make for experience making decisions on her own, or writing legislation on her own, or making policy. Even if you religiously read and watch the political news and proceedings every day, that does not make you an experienced politician.

We still have no idea if she is actually remotely capable of running a government because although no doubt she has knowledge, she lacks the practical experience as you acknowledge. She has never had any experience whatsoever running a government without a PM, Cabinet and Parliament (or actually running a government at all, because she does not do the day to day functions of a PM, she has no experience being a PM or other minister).

I'm going to refer to Arch's response to this, since he masterfully went into detail on the topic, more than I could.
Although, you did miss out the full quote:

The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[20] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. The majority of appointees are senior politicians, including Ministers of the Crown, the few most senior figures of the Loyal Opposition, the Parliamentary leader of the third-largest party, a couple of the most senior figures in the devolved British governments and senior politicians from Commonwealth countries. Besides these, the Council includes a very few members of the Royal Family (usually the consort and heir apparent only), a few dozen judges from British and Commonwealth countries, a few clergy and a small number of senior civil servants.

So even if HM Gov advisers the Monarch on who should can be members, it is still based on which individuals hold what senior positions of the entire country, and sometime the Commonwealth Realm. So, again, not exactly true.

Did I say make legislation on here own? I said more experience than the members of the cabinet. It's the civil service that make and understand the legislation, and are also far more experienced in policy making than any cabinet. It's the Civil Service that is always there, while a cabinet can change regularly. It's no different than with the Queen, and if in a hypothetical situation a cabinet was not there, it would be the Civil Service that would advise and address the situation to the Queen, and vice versa.
Experience is also about learning from past mistakes and problems, which this current cabinet has not done. Governments don't even have to listen to the concerns experienced Civil Servants have on a particular topic who have seen trial and errors or successes of various policies. Take Brexit as an example, the sheer amount of stress put on the Civil Service by the Tory Government despite their warning shows little understanding or experience from the Government.

No, but again, that's what a civil service is for. In fact, without a civil service there is no functioning government either. You can have a civil service without a government, but not a government without the civil service.

But if you make few decisions, how can you learn from them? Unless you actually make decisions, make mistakes, you can’t learn from those mistakes. You cannot really get experience until you actually do the thing, theoretical knowledge is not the same as actually doing it.
Learning from trial and error requires actual trial an error.

Because Elizabeth has not made many real decisions, she does not have have much experience making decisions an learning from them.

The thing about the civil service is there might carry out and execute legislation, they are not the decision makers on what gets passed and what gets done. You still need an experienced decision maker, and someone whose whole career has been based on avoiding making such decisions and leaving them to others is not qualified to be suddenly thrust into a decision making role.

[Celritannia]

I'm going to refer to Arch's response to this, since he masterfully went into detail on the topic, more than I could.
Although, you did miss out the full quote:



So even if HM Gov advisers the Monarch on who should can be members, it is still based on which individuals hold what senior positions of the entire country, and sometime the Commonwealth Realm. So, again, not exactly true.

Did I say make legislation on here own? I said more experience than the members of the cabinet. It's the civil service that make and understand the legislation, and are also far more experienced in policy making than any cabinet. It's the Civil Service that is always there, while a cabinet can change regularly. It's no different than with the Queen, and if in a hypothetical situation a cabinet was not there, it would be the Civil Service that would advise and address the situation to the Queen, and vice versa.
Experience is also about learning from past mistakes and problems, which this current cabinet has not done. Governments don't even have to listen to the concerns experienced Civil Servants have on a particular topic who have seen trial and errors or successes of various policies. Take Brexit as an example, the sheer amount of stress put on the Civil Service by the Tory Government despite their warning shows little understanding or experience from the Government.

No, but again, that's what a civil service is for. In fact, without a civil service there is no functioning government either. You can have a civil service without a government, but not a government without the civil service.

But if you make few decisions, how can you learn from them? Unless you actually make decisions, make mistakes, you can’t learn from those mistakes. You cannot really get experience until you actually do the thing, theoretical knowledge is not the same as actually doing it.
Learning from trial and error requires actual trial an error.

Because Elizabeth has not made many real decisions, she does not have have much experience making decisions an learning from them.

The thing about the civil service is there might carry out and execute legislation, they are not the decision makers on what gets passed and what gets done. You still need an experienced decision maker, and someone whose whole career has been based on avoiding making such decisions and leaving them to others is not qualified to be suddenly thrust into a decision making role.

And 10 years of Tory rule has seen little experience made by this government, trust me, I am still living through it.

Again, that's what the Civil Service is there for. Queen Elizabeth is actually more like the highest Civil Servant than a Monarch, offering advice to the Government when things go wrong.
Most new governments are also inexperienced, I mean, this is the first time Boris Johnson has been PM, is he experienced for the job?

The civil service are the experienced decision makers though, they always advise the new government that is elected what previous governments have done and what works and does not work. Which is why a lot of senior civil servants have left because of varying disagreements and bullying by certain Tory Minister's not getting their way.
Elected Governments are not as experienced compared to long serving civil servants.

And again, I said she has more experience than the current government, not the civil service or parliament.

[Novus America]

But if you make few decisions, how can you learn from them? Unless you actually make decisions, make mistakes, you can’t learn from those mistakes. You cannot really get experience until you actually do the thing, theoretical knowledge is not the same as actually doing it.
Learning from trial and error requires actual trial an error.

Because Elizabeth has not made many real decisions, she does not have have much experience making decisions an learning from them.

The thing about the civil service is there might carry out and execute legislation, they are not the decision makers on what gets passed and what gets done. You still need an experienced decision maker, and someone whose whole career has been based on avoiding making such decisions and leaving them to others is not qualified to be suddenly thrust into a decision making role.

And 10 years of Tory rule has seen little experience made by this government, trust me, I am still living through it.

Again, that's what the Civil Service is there for. Queen Elizabeth is actually more like the highest Civil Servant than a Monarch, offering advice to the Government when things go wrong.
Most new governments are also inexperienced, I mean, this is the first time Boris Johnson has been PM, is he experienced for the job?

The civil service are the experienced decision makers though, they always advise the new government that is elected what previous governments have done and what works and does not work. Which is why a lot of senior civil servants have left because of varying disagreements and bullying by certain Tory Minister's not getting their way.
Elected Governments are not as experienced compared to long serving civil servants.

And again, I said she has more experience than the current government, not the civil service or parliament.

But the civil service advises on decisions, but it is not the one who makes most of them.
And each department runs as its own fiefdom, often poorly coordinated with the others.

A government of just the civil service would be ill equipped to make major decisions on policy changes, although the civil service is experienced, a civil service is inherently interested in maintaining the status quo.

Which I guess might be okay if that is what you want. But civil services are notorious for being stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

[Celritannia]

And 10 years of Tory rule has seen little experience made by this government, trust me, I am still living through it.

Again, that's what the Civil Service is there for. Queen Elizabeth is actually more like the highest Civil Servant than a Monarch, offering advice to the Government when things go wrong.
Most new governments are also inexperienced, I mean, this is the first time Boris Johnson has been PM, is he experienced for the job?

The civil service are the experienced decision makers though, they always advise the new government that is elected what previous governments have done and what works and does not work. Which is why a lot of senior civil servants have left because of varying disagreements and bullying by certain Tory Minister's not getting their way.
Elected Governments are not as experienced compared to long serving civil servants.

And again, I said she has more experience than the current government, not the civil service or parliament.

But the civil service advises on decisions, but it is not the one who makes most of them.
And each department runs as its own fiefdom, often poorly coordinated with the others.

A government of just the civil service would be ill equipped to make major decisions on policy changes, although the civil service is experienced, a civil service is inherently interested in maintaining the status quo.

Which I guess might be okay if that is what you want. But civil services are notorious for being stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

No, not entirely
And while each civil service is part of a department, it's all under the Civil Service. It's not like the US where each department is different Civil Service.
The whole UK Civil Service is one thing.

You can still have a Parliament and a Civil Service, which is what happened in Belgium during it's lack of Government.

Again, a Parliament can exist with a Civil Service.

Again, no. They go by evidence and facts.

[Novus America]

But the civil service advises on decisions, but it is not the one who makes most of them.
And each department runs as its own fiefdom, often poorly coordinated with the others.

A government of just the civil service would be ill equipped to make major decisions on policy changes, although the civil service is experienced, a civil service is inherently interested in maintaining the status quo.

Which I guess might be okay if that is what you want. But civil services are notorious for being stuck in their ways and resistant to change.

No, not entirely
And while each civil service is part of a department, it's all under the Civil Service. It's not like the US where each department is different Civil Service.
The whole UK Civil Service is one thing.

You can still have a Parliament and a Civil Service, which is what happened in Belgium during it's lack of Government.

Again, a Parliament can exist with a Civil Service.

Again, no. They go by evidence and facts.

Sure, obviously a Parliament needs a civil service to function, but have you ever worked in government? Or for the UK case watched Yes Minister?
The idea the civil servants are simply objective servants of evidence and fact is absurd (which would not work anyways because many governance decisions are a matter of subjective values, not objective fact), in fact civil servants can be just as self interested as any politician, and very much act in what is their self interests.

Even if they are all part of a single civil service (but some government agencies like the NHS are not actually part of that) they still are hardly a unified hive mind, each department has its own interests and wants to defend its power.

If an objective review says some civil service positions are overpaid or redundant the civil sevants in those areas will strong opposes evidence and facts to keep their pay and jobs.

The primary interests of many if not most civil servants is their paychecks, benefits and job stability. Many have done the same job for decades and do not want to do it differently, let alone lose that job.

And no matter how much you intend to make it meritorious there still will be a lot of politics in who gets promoted. Even unintentionally the people making the promotion decisions will favor their friends and those who will help them.

A civil service left to its own devices will advance its own selfish interests.

[Celritannia]

No, not entirely
And while each civil service is part of a department, it's all under the Civil Service. It's not like the US where each department is different Civil Service.
The whole UK Civil Service is one thing.

You can still have a Parliament and a Civil Service, which is what happened in Belgium during it's lack of Government.

Again, a Parliament can exist with a Civil Service.

Again, no. They go by evidence and facts.

Sure, obviously a Parliament needs a civil service to function, but have you ever worked in government? Or for the UK case watched Yes Minister?
The idea the civil servants are simply objective servants of evidence and fact is absurd (which would not work anyways because many governance decisions are a matter of subjective values, not objective fact), in fact civil servants can be just as self interested as any politician, and very much act in what is their self interests.

Even if they are all part of a single civil service (but some government agencies like the NHS are not actually part of that) they still are hardly a unified hive mind, each department has its own interests and wants to defend its power.

If an objective review says some civil service positions are overpaid or redundant the civil sevants in those areas will strong opposes evidence and facts to keep their pay and jobs.

The primary interests of many if not most civil servants is their paychecks, benefits and job stability. Many have done the same job for decades and do not want to do it differently, let alone lose that job.

And no matter how much you intend to make it meritorious there still will be a lot of politics in who gets promoted. Even unintentionally the people making the promotion decisions will favor their friends and those who will help them.

A civil service left to its own devices will advance its own selfish interests.

You base how the UK civil service works on a TV show? I mean it's a good shows, but not fully accurate.
I am not saying they are not, but they are not "stuck in their ways" as you put it.
Civil service, yes some are self centred, but they still have more experience.

While yes, they all still respond to the Cabinet Secretary.

Any government area will do that though, Ministers, MPs, or Civil Servants.

And they deserve those things, more so than the MPs getting increasing their bonuses.

Again, this is only somewhat true.
The Civil Service is still highly based on merit. Examination is key.
But Civil Servants still must remain neutral. I haven't heard many stories of Government Minister promoting a lot of Civil Servants because they are friends.

[Novus America]

Sure, obviously a Parliament needs a civil service to function, but have you ever worked in government? Or for the UK case watched Yes Minister?
The idea the civil servants are simply objective servants of evidence and fact is absurd (which would not work anyways because many governance decisions are a matter of subjective values, not objective fact), in fact civil servants can be just as self interested as any politician, and very much act in what is their self interests.

Even if they are all part of a single civil service (but some government agencies like the NHS are not actually part of that) they still are hardly a unified hive mind, each department has its own interests and wants to defend its power.

If an objective review says some civil service positions are overpaid or redundant the civil sevants in those areas will strong opposes evidence and facts to keep their pay and jobs.

The primary interests of many if not most civil servants is their paychecks, benefits and job stability. Many have done the same job for decades and do not want to do it differently, let alone lose that job.

And no matter how much you intend to make it meritorious there still will be a lot of politics in who gets promoted. Even unintentionally the people making the promotion decisions will favor their friends and those who will help them.

A civil service left to its own devices will advance its own selfish interests.

You base how the UK civil service works on a TV show? I mean it's a good shows, but not fully accurate.
I am not saying they are not, but they are not "stuck in their ways" as you put it.
Civil service, yes some are self centred, but they still have more experience.

While yes, they all still respond to the Cabinet Secretary.

Any government area will do that though, Ministers, MPs, or Civil Servants.

And they deserve those things, more so than the MPs getting increasing their bonuses.

Again, this is only somewhat true.
The Civil Service is still highly based on merit. Examination is key.
But Civil Servants still must remain neutral. I haven't heard many stories of Government Minister promoting a lot of Civil Servants because they are friends.

I am not making the basis purely on the show, I have worked in government and seen the way it works. And even though it was in us government the show still resonates, some things are universal.

Many absolutely are stuck in their ways. And again even if based on merit, there is still going to be subjective value judgements in promotion. It is much easier to move up in an organization if you have freeness higher up in the organization. It is usually less a government minister saying “promote my friends” and more the members of a civil service promotion board saying “promote this guy because we think he is good for the job” (but they think he is good because he made friends with them, the best way to get a promotion is make friends with whoever is making the promotion decisions, that is the way it works in any organization).

Maybe you think they deserve those things, (absolutely many do, some probably do not, there are bad civil servants who are difficult to remove) but still it is in their interest to have their pay, job security and benefits increased.

And having to remain neutral is a problem if you have to make a decision that requires you to not be neutral!

Sure yes, civil servants have more experience in their areas, but not experience in being MPs.
A senior civil servant who is an environmental scientist will be quite experienced in environmental science, but not in being an MP.

That is the whole point. What the Queen does and is experienced in (although she is selected by pure nepotism not merit) and what the civil service does are not the same as what the MPs and government are experienced in.

Also experience does not always make one good at their job either.

Say I have to candidates for promotion to head of their office.
Both work the same basic job. Joe Smith has been in the job 20 years. He is an experienced civil servant who shows up on time, does his job well enough, although sometimes slowly, and does well with tests. But he struggles with new technology and is not particularly innovative or imaginative.

Jane Doe works the same job, but had only done it 10 years. She however is much more productive than Joe Smith, being excellent with technology and innovative, if somewhat unorthodox process improvements.

Where Joe Smith is still carrying around papers in hand, she uses information technology instead.

Joe Smith is more experienced, but Jane Doe is the better candidate.

[Vassenor]

Apparently Corbyn is still living rent-free in the Mail on Sunday Newsroom's collective mind as they struggle to find a way to blame him for Boris and Cummings getting Corona.

[Novus America]

Apparently Corbyn is still living rent-free in the Mail on Sunday Newsroom's collective mind as they struggle to find a way to blame him for Boris and Cummings getting Corona.

I mean the Daily Fail and Twitter? Is it really surprising such a vile and unholy union produced such an abomination as that claim?

Stay away from Twitter and the Daily Fail. Both are hazardous to your health.

[Vassenor]

Apparently Corbyn is still living rent-free in the Mail on Sunday Newsroom's collective mind as they struggle to find a way to blame him for Boris and Cummings getting Corona.

I mean the Daily Fail and Twitter? Is it really surprising such a vile and unholy union produced such an abomination as that claim?

Stay away from Twitter and the Daily Fail. Both are hazardous to your health.

So where does it say that the MoS is sourcing from Twitter?

[Novus America]

I mean the Daily Fail and Twitter? Is it really surprising such a vile and unholy union produced such an abomination as that claim?

Stay away from Twitter and the Daily Fail. Both are hazardous to your health.

So where does it say that the MoS is sourcing from Twitter?

It does not, but it is still a Daily Fail article being cited on Twitter. Something like Ebola on HIV. I was somewhat joking, but it is in fact best to stay away from Twitter and the Daily Fail, far, far away.

The things you see on both will destroy your sanity, and soul (being I have no soul and no sanity I am somewhat immune, but that is another matter...)

[Philjia]

Apparently Public Health England is going to be scrapped and replaced in order to combine the duties of PHE with NHS Test and Trace.

[Novus America]

Apparently Public Health England is going to be scrapped and replaced in order to combine the duties of PHE with NHS Test and Trace.

That actually seems like a perfectly good idea. Having the NHS abs PHE be two separate bodies seems odd, and clearly did not work here.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Apparently Public Health England is going to be scrapped and replaced in order to combine the duties of PHE with NHS Test and Trace.

That actually seems like a perfectly good idea. Having the NHS abs PHE be two separate bodies seems odd, and clearly did not work here.

Creating it in the first place was a stupid idea foisted on the country by the Conservatives.

[The Archregimancy]

So where does it say that the MoS is sourcing from Twitter?

It does not, but it is still a Daily Fail article being cited on Twitter.

No it isn't.

According to Vassenor it's a Mail on Sunday article being cited on Twitter. Vassenor is correct on this point; the story was written by the Mail on Sunday's deputy political editor Glen Owen. While they're sister papers that share an owner, like many equivalent British Sunday newspapers it has a wholly different editorial staff from its stablemate.

This isn't some wholly arcane point, either. The Mail on Sunday has been known to take a distinct editorial line from the Daily Mail on significant political issues. For example, the Sunday paper backed the Alliance in the 1983 election despite Thatcher being at the peak of her post-Falklands powers, and was strongly pro-Remain in the 2016 referendum. Nobody would dispute the fact that the Mail on Sunday is fundamentally a conservative medium, but it's misleading to lump it unthinkingly alongside the Daily Mail.

In sum, your characterisation of this tweet is about as accurate as your earlier characterisation of the composition of the Privy Council as 'basically the PM and cabinet, plus a few other people, who the PM de facto appoints'; roughly speaking, your grasp of these issues has been akin to analysing Six Nations matches on the assumption that they're all played using rugby league rules.

I know devotion to accuracy may be somewhat old-fashioned in this day and age, but I find that it's not entirely without its benefits.


Anyway, the two real issues with the story are 1) the conspirational lean of the headline and 2) the selectivity of the alleged infection.

On the latter point, if Milne really was the source of the infections for Johnson and Cummings, then it seems extraordinary that Corbyn - who was also present at the meeting, and was presumably spending more time with Milne than the PM and Cummings - somehow escaped infection. On the former point, edit the headline to 'Did Jeremy Corbyn aide Seumas Milne inadvertently infect Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings with coronavirus during Downing Street visit?', and there's a not wholly ridiculous - if still purely speculative and unprovable - story buried in there; still slightly silly, but not wholly ridiculous.

[Celritannia]

You base how the UK civil service works on a TV show? I mean it's a good shows, but not fully accurate.
I am not saying they are not, but they are not "stuck in their ways" as you put it.
Civil service, yes some are self centred, but they still have more experience.

While yes, they all still respond to the Cabinet Secretary.

Any government area will do that though, Ministers, MPs, or Civil Servants.

And they deserve those things, more so than the MPs getting increasing their bonuses.

Again, this is only somewhat true.
The Civil Service is still highly based on merit. Examination is key.
But Civil Servants still must remain neutral. I haven't heard many stories of Government Minister promoting a lot of Civil Servants because they are friends.

I am not making the basis purely on the show, I have worked in government and seen the way it works. And even though it was in us government the show still resonates, some things are universal.

Many absolutely are stuck in their ways. And again even if based on merit, there is still going to be subjective value judgements in promotion. It is much easier to move up in an organization if you have freeness higher up in the organization. It is usually less a government minister saying “promote my friends” and more the members of a civil service promotion board saying “promote this guy because we think he is good for the job” (but they think he is good because he made friends with them, the best way to get a promotion is make friends with whoever is making the promotion decisions, that is the way it works in any organization).

Maybe you think they deserve those things, (absolutely many do, some probably do not, there are bad civil servants who are difficult to remove) but still it is in their interest to have their pay, job security and benefits increased.

And having to remain neutral is a problem if you have to make a decision that requires you to not be neutral!

Sure yes, civil servants have more experience in their areas, but not experience in being MPs.
A senior civil servant who is an environmental scientist will be quite experienced in environmental science, but not in being an MP.

That is the whole point. What the Queen does and is experienced in (although she is selected by pure nepotism not merit) and what the civil service does are not the same as what the MPs and government are experienced in.

Also experience does not always make one good at their job either.

Say I have to candidates for promotion to head of their office.
Both work the same basic job. Joe Smith has been in the job 20 years. He is an experienced civil servant who shows up on time, does his job well enough, although sometimes slowly, and does well with tests. But he struggles with new technology and is not particularly innovative or imaginative.

Jane Doe works the same job, but had only done it 10 years. She however is much more productive than Joe Smith, being excellent with technology and innovative, if somewhat unorthodox process improvements.

Where Joe Smith is still carrying around papers in hand, she uses information technology instead.

Joe Smith is more experienced, but Jane Doe is the better candidate.

Regardless what you say though, it's the civil service that is the experienced backbone of the country. The UK cannot function without it, and time and time again, they are the ones that have to either inform the Minister something can't be done, or find ways to do it.
MPs maybe elected to represent the constituency, but it is the Civil Service that are the policy makers.
Remember, an MP is representing their constituency, but the Civil Service makes policy at the national level.

Governments come and go, but the Civil Service remains. Whether some are stuck in their ways or not (depends really so cannot generalise) they still have so much more benefits to give to policy making.

And yes, the Monarchy my be a hereditary position, but it is not a dangerous institution like it was in the past. a long reigning monarch who has seen problems time and again does have more experience than an amateur government, which is why her advice to the Government is necessary.

Whether you like it or not (and I honestly cannot believe you decided to make a whole argument based on one passing comment) the Monarch cand and sometimes does have more experience from a long reign than an inexperienced first time Prime Minister.
It's the same with the Civil Service. I respect the Civil Service a great deal.

[Greed and Death]

I am not making the basis purely on the show, I have worked in government and seen the way it works. And even though it was in us government the show still resonates, some things are universal.

Many absolutely are stuck in their ways. And again even if based on merit, there is still going to be subjective value judgements in promotion. It is much easier to move up in an organization if you have freeness higher up in the organization. It is usually less a government minister saying “promote my friends” and more the members of a civil service promotion board saying “promote this guy because we think he is good for the job” (but they think he is good because he made friends with them, the best way to get a promotion is make friends with whoever is making the promotion decisions, that is the way it works in any organization).

Maybe you think they deserve those things, (absolutely many do, some probably do not, there are bad civil servants who are difficult to remove) but still it is in their interest to have their pay, job security and benefits increased.

And having to remain neutral is a problem if you have to make a decision that requires you to not be neutral!

Sure yes, civil servants have more experience in their areas, but not experience in being MPs.
A senior civil servant who is an environmental scientist will be quite experienced in environmental science, but not in being an MP.

That is the whole point. What the Queen does and is experienced in (although she is selected by pure nepotism not merit) and what the civil service does are not the same as what the MPs and government are experienced in.

Also experience does not always make one good at their job either.

Say I have to candidates for promotion to head of their office.
Both work the same basic job. Joe Smith has been in the job 20 years. He is an experienced civil servant who shows up on time, does his job well enough, although sometimes slowly, and does well with tests. But he struggles with new technology and is not particularly innovative or imaginative.

Jane Doe works the same job, but had only done it 10 years. She however is much more productive than Joe Smith, being excellent with technology and innovative, if somewhat unorthodox process improvements.

Where Joe Smith is still carrying around papers in hand, she uses information technology instead.

Joe Smith is more experienced, but Jane Doe is the better candidate.

Regardless what you say though, it's the civil service that is the experienced backbone of the country. The UK cannot function without it, and time and time again, they are the ones that have to either inform the Minister something can't be done, or find ways to do it.
MPs maybe elected to represent the constituency, but it is the Civil Service that are the policy makers.
Remember, an MP is representing their constituency, but the Civil Service makes policy at the national level.

Governments come and go, but the Civil Service remains. Whether some are stuck in their ways or not (depends really so cannot generalise) they still have so much more benefits to give to policy making.

And yes, the Monarchy my be a hereditary position, but it is not a dangerous institution like it was in the past. a long reigning monarch who has seen problems time and again does have more experience than an amateur government, which is why her advice to the Government is necessary.

Whether you like it or not (and I honestly cannot believe you decided to make a whole argument based on one passing comment) the Monarch cand and sometimes does have more experience from a long reign than an inexperienced first time Prime Minister.
It's the same with the Civil Service. I respect the Civil Service a great deal.

So BoJo will remove most of the civil service ad replace them with political cronies in a month then ?

[Novus America]

I am not making the basis purely on the show, I have worked in government and seen the way it works. And even though it was in us government the show still resonates, some things are universal.

Many absolutely are stuck in their ways. And again even if based on merit, there is still going to be subjective value judgements in promotion. It is much easier to move up in an organization if you have freeness higher up in the organization. It is usually less a government minister saying “promote my friends” and more the members of a civil service promotion board saying “promote this guy because we think he is good for the job” (but they think he is good because he made friends with them, the best way to get a promotion is make friends with whoever is making the promotion decisions, that is the way it works in any organization).

Maybe you think they deserve those things, (absolutely many do, some probably do not, there are bad civil servants who are difficult to remove) but still it is in their interest to have their pay, job security and benefits increased.

And having to remain neutral is a problem if you have to make a decision that requires you to not be neutral!

Sure yes, civil servants have more experience in their areas, but not experience in being MPs.
A senior civil servant who is an environmental scientist will be quite experienced in environmental science, but not in being an MP.

That is the whole point. What the Queen does and is experienced in (although she is selected by pure nepotism not merit) and what the civil service does are not the same as what the MPs and government are experienced in.

Also experience does not always make one good at their job either.

Say I have to candidates for promotion to head of their office.
Both work the same basic job. Joe Smith has been in the job 20 years. He is an experienced civil servant who shows up on time, does his job well enough, although sometimes slowly, and does well with tests. But he struggles with new technology and is not particularly innovative or imaginative.

Jane Doe works the same job, but had only done it 10 years. She however is much more productive than Joe Smith, being excellent with technology and innovative, if somewhat unorthodox process improvements.

Where Joe Smith is still carrying around papers in hand, she uses information technology instead.

Joe Smith is more experienced, but Jane Doe is the better candidate.

Regardless what you say though, it's the civil service that is the experienced backbone of the country. The UK cannot function without it, and time and time again, they are the ones that have to either inform the Minister something can't be done, or find ways to do it.
MPs maybe elected to represent the constituency, but it is the Civil Service that are the policy makers.
Remember, an MP is representing their constituency, but the Civil Service makes policy at the national level.

Governments come and go, but the Civil Service remains. Whether some are stuck in their ways or not (depends really so cannot generalise) they still have so much more benefits to give to policy making.

And yes, the Monarchy my be a hereditary position, but it is not a dangerous institution like it was in the past. a long reigning monarch who has seen problems time and again does have more experience than an amateur government, which is why her advice to the Government is necessary.

Whether you like it or not (and I honestly cannot believe you decided to make a whole argument based on one passing comment) the Monarch cand and sometimes does have more experience from a long reign than an inexperienced first time Prime Minister.
It's the same with the Civil Service. I respect the Civil Service a great deal.

Yes the monarch does have more experience in certain matters. But different matters. And experience does not necessarily make someone better. Experience can be good, but it is hardly the only thing we judge people on and you can have a lot of experience and still not be very good at something. And I never said the civil service is bad. Yes you need it too.

The point though is simply we have nothing to show Elizabeth would be good at exercising real power or good at deciding on matters she has never publicly decided. We have no idea what she would do or what what she stands for.

[Fartsniffage]

Regardless what you say though, it's the civil service that is the experienced backbone of the country. The UK cannot function without it, and time and time again, they are the ones that have to either inform the Minister something can't be done, or find ways to do it.
MPs maybe elected to represent the constituency, but it is the Civil Service that are the policy makers.
Remember, an MP is representing their constituency, but the Civil Service makes policy at the national level.

Governments come and go, but the Civil Service remains. Whether some are stuck in their ways or not (depends really so cannot generalise) they still have so much more benefits to give to policy making.

And yes, the Monarchy my be a hereditary position, but it is not a dangerous institution like it was in the past. a long reigning monarch who has seen problems time and again does have more experience than an amateur government, which is why her advice to the Government is necessary.

Whether you like it or not (and I honestly cannot believe you decided to make a whole argument based on one passing comment) the Monarch cand and sometimes does have more experience from a long reign than an inexperienced first time Prime Minister.
It's the same with the Civil Service. I respect the Civil Service a great deal.

So BoJo will remove most of the civil service ad replace them with political cronies in a month then ?

Nah, civil servants are employed by the Crown, not Parliament, to prevent exactly that sort of thing.