Harry’s Place

Perhaps a sensible path would be not to hire people into civil service jobs who had previously stood as candidates for a political party. The fact that Green’s informant had ambitions within the Conservative Party should have been the first clue. Perhaps he should not have got the job on the basis of a clear clash - indeed collsion - of interests.

Brett,

Galley was not of a high enough grade to mandate the disclosure of his political affiliations. You have to be of a certain level before you have to inform your line manager of any party-political associations.

Nice one Neil, you saved me a post.

Perhaps a sensible path would be not to hire people into civil service jobs who had previously stood as candidates for a political party.

I hear you, but we don’t - I don’t - want to head down a path that means previous or even current political affiliation disbars you from employment within the civil service. The nature of the job means that workers in the civil service will likely have a disproportionate interest in politics. I’ts perfectly possible for a Tory partisan to do his job properly for a Labour government; he just nees to have a modicum of integrity.

Also, it helps if the opposition - whoever they are at whatever time - do not conflate public interest with their own. It poisons the well from which they, too, will one day be supping.

Whatever Galley is and has done, he ‘aint no Clive Ponting.

Thanks for the link. I’ve made the case for how this could work in more detail here:
http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-state-funding-for-political.html

And I’ve made the case for why the Damian Green issue underlines the need for ideas like this here:
http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2008/12/green-and-brown-time-to-move-to-less.html

I’ve long thought we should have an American presidential system where the president and his team can appoint the entire civil service, thus removing this bollocks where the government has to work with a bunch of people that aren’t on the same page leading to mistrust and incompetence. And it would make for better cabinet government due to the president being able to select the best person for each job, rather than having to rely on a handful of MPs, and nobody would be able to undermine them with leadership plots, which as we saw in the Blair years, can render the government dysfunctional at times.

Lastly the leader of the country could enjoy a more dignified existence where he/she would not have to be heckled at parliament, leaving that to ministers, which would be healthy for the country and the political process.

Here’s an extract from Ministry of Truth’s dissection of the Damian Green affair.

Labour stooge in “supports-arrest-of-political-opponents” shocka. Reds of all stripes are all the same.

The danger isan overly politicised service, wherein the civil servants know they owe their job to keeping a particular party in power. teh contrary is that at the oment we change government infrequently, so if Labour wins the next election, there will be an entire generation of Senior civil servants hegemonically attuned to Labour, which would make the Tories have a hard time were they ever to get back in…

Labour stooge in “supports-arrest-of-political-opponents” shocka. Reds of all stripes are all the same.

Christ, Morgoth, can you not - for once - see beyond the end of your nose? In what sense is demcoracy served by partisan civil servants spending their working hours trying to undermine the government of the day, which is clearly what is happening in some cases and is transparently the case with Galley?

The government is elected by us and each one of us pays the wages of civil servants. It’s not their job to effect a coup d’etat by a thousand cuts.

Since when has the civil service been independent in anything other than just name? Wasn’t Alistair Campbell a civil servant?

“In what sense is demcoracy served by partisan civil servants spending their working hours trying to undermine the government of the day, which is clearly what is happening in some cases and is transparently the case with Galley?”

How many hours exactly were spent in such activity.

The leaks were low-level embarrassments, eg Smith’s deliberate covering-up of the cock-up over illegal immigrants.

Certainly Galley should be subject to disciplinary procedures, but the receiving MP should not be arrested.

In what sense is democracy served by that?

Nice one Neil, you saved me a post.

And me too.

I’ve been arguing about this issue, along these lines, with my wife, parents of my kids friends, Brett, you…

In a nutshell, the way I feel about this now, after the fact have become clearer, is this:

1. Public interest whistleblowing, to newspapers, or on a one off basis to MPs, is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

2. That is to be contrasted with a civil servant acting as a de facto spy within a government department, passing information on to his Tory handlers, on an ongoing basis, with the intention of helping them get ‘ahead of the curve’ with the Government. That is outrageous.

3. Should MPs/Civil Servants be prosecuted: hmmm. Probably not. It is difficult to draw the line between 1 and 2.

4. Should searches have taken place in Parliament? Should constituents correspondence - provided confidentially to the MP - be seized by the Police? Personally, I find that utterly outrageous.

The problem I have is this.

If Green and a Tory spy did conspire to sneak a peak at Government policy formation, to make Cameron and Green look cleverer and more insightful than they actually were at the dispatch box, or so they could nick ideas and pass them off as their own, then that is disgusting. It is a disgraceful and nasty thing for a poltician to do. It is the equivalent of cheating at exams.

HOWEVER, I have to accept, that if I don’t want them prosecuted, and if this fellow is to walk into a job at Conservative Central Office if he’s sacked… then there’s no disincentive for this sort of behaviour at all.

The “solution” is a US style spoils system - only employ senior civil servants who are loyal Labour (or Tory) Party members. Do we really want that? No, I think not. But the alternative is to accept political espionage. If you’re for that, why not just bug Cabinet meetings!

If Damian Green told a Tory supporting civil servant to spy on the Government, rather than come to work for CCO, then it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful, because it undermines and imperils an independent civil service.

Unfortunately, this issue has been utterly messed up and hidden by the (in my view) justified outrage over the arrest of an MP and the seizure of his papers, in the House of Commons. That’s something that was not “ordered” by the Government - it seems to have caught them by surprise. But they’re getting the blame, of course.

In the UK the civil service provides continuity from one administration to the next; this is not the case in the US where Obama will be installing his own civil service.

To be clear: while the top levels of the various departments and agencies (secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, etc.) are appointed by the US president, the bulk of federal employees stay on the job from administration to administration.

There is another alternative, which is for more open government, the fewer secrets, the fewer leaks. Some say this discourages honest advice, but if you have advice you’d be ashamed to make in public, then you shouldn’t give it, seems to me.

The leaks were low-level embarrassments, eg Smith’s deliberate covering-up of the cock-up over illegal immigrants.

You argument only stands up if all the documents leaked to Green can be argued to have a sufficient public interest element to justify Green’s claim to have been ‘doing his job’ - if any one of those documents fails that test then Green has a problem, although its one that may be best dealt with by the Committee on Standards and Privileges as a potential breach of the MPs Code of Conduct or, even, a contempt of parliament.

For supporters of the party of Alistair Campbell to do anything other than shut the fuck up about this subject beggars belief.

David T:

“The “solution” is a US style spoils system - only employ senior civil servants who are loyal Labour (or Tory) Party members. Do we really want that? No, I think not.”

I think that you ‘emote’ not - there is a general sense that the UK benefits from a neutral civil service. I just don’t think it’s ever examined very often, and there is no vested interest making the case for in-and-outers. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, and I would argue that the ‘representative’ nature of our democracy suffers as a result.

At the moment, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. I’d like a government that genuinely has to take responsibility for its actions and behave with some degree of purpose. At the moment, mandarins can freewheel secure in the knowledge that someone else will get the blame.

Additionally, the one-eyed thieving cunt currently squatting in Downing Street would have, if the Labour Party stooges here had any consistency, spend most of the years between 1983 and 1997 in Prison on the samwe charges.

Hypocrisy, your name is the Labour Party.

I think Neil D misunderstands how the US Civil Service works. The vast rank and file of the workers are career employees fully protected from being fired w.o. just cause for political reasons–misfeasance or malfeasance of office being the only reason for termination. Thus, as in the case of GB and for those who originated the concept in Germany (in the modern era) and originally in ancient China, continuity of expertise in carrying out the daily routine of government affairs is assured with definite measures to keep partisan political pressure from being brought to bear (in the case of the US this is known as the Hatch Act.)

The difference between the American and British approach is that in the US, in the belief that new Governments and new ideas given legitimacy by the voters should not be strangled in the crib by the dead hand of former administrations carried forward through regulations promulgated through the Civil Service. Thus the compromise between a “pure” Civil Service of technocrats alone and a Jacksonian “spoils” system in which the entire administrative mechanism of government is disruptively changed every four years to be repopulated by people of dubious capabilities. Hence the allowance for the replacement of Dept. Heads and their deputies via political appointment to provide the new President some ability to bend the bureaucracy to new directions.

That’s the theory, anyway. As to how it all works out in practice?
As the fine print on the new car mpg sticker says: “Your mileage may vary.”

One of the advantages of having a non-partisan civil service, is that they are not always “on the same page” as the ministers. If they have risen to their positions through a succession of government administrations, they are more likely to have a weather eye on the historical precedents of any policy, and the law of unintended consequences. They can help provide the checks and balances that a healthy, robust system needs.

I see that as I was typing away furiously head down, Gene already covered my point rather more sussinctly.

I’m aware that the lower levels remain untouched, apart from the fact there is usually a hiring freeze during transitions as I understand it, but it is arguably that the politicising of higher level posts makes it damn clear who the lower levels are working for.

Reds of all stripes are all the same.

How true that is. Remember all the hoohah about freedom of information and holding the executive accountable? Now it turns out that finding out what the executive are up to is supposedly a bad thing that would make government impossible, and preserving the independence of the executive from democratic oversight and control is a vital principle of the Left.

It’s a pity Labour and it’s supporters didn’t discover this enthusiasm for civil service neutrality back in 1997, before the impartial Whitehall press officers were elbowed out of the way to be replaced by the likes of Jo Moore and Alastair Campbell.

Yes, Monty, that’s the theory, and it sometimes works out that way–but the other edge of the sword is that the same civil service may also act to thwart, delay or transmorgify much need reforms and thus negate the entire purpose of the election in the first place. It’s a crap shoot and really depends on the skill the new President and his Cabinet Heads have for bureaucratic infighting and the extent to which the President can use the “bully pulpit” of publicity to create a ground-swell for his programs that will bring pressure to bear on a recalcitrant bureaucracy.

Certainly Galley should be subject to disciplinary procedures, but the receiving MP should not be arrested.

That very much depends on the MP’s role. If he’s aiding or abetting misconduct in a public office - as opposed to being the innocent recipient of leaks - then arrest the fucker. He’s party to a politically-motivated deception that is specifically designed to undermine the *elected* administration.

If any MP becomes aware that a civil servant is failing in his/her duty to provide non-partisan service to the government of the day - a civil servant whose objectivity is compromised - then how can it NOT be incumbent on that MP to disclose this?

My question is this.

I think it is unhealthy for the civil service to contain civil servants who have decided that they will act as spies, on an ongoing basis, for a party which did not win an election and are not in power. The Government cannot trust advice from its civil service, and cannot discuss matters with the civil service, if they know that one of their number is actually working against them, and for a political party which wants them to fail, publicly. This would be so whether the party in power was Tory or Labour.

I see huge problems with prosecuting civil servants and certainly MPs, in this situation.

However, sacking a civil servant is no real ’sanction’ if that civil servant can be expected to be given a job, and treated like a conquering hero, by the party which he has spied for.

So, what’s the sanction?

The only sanction I think there realistically can, or should be is a public recognition that a civil servant who spys on an ongoing basis for the Opposition is undermining the reputation of the civil service, and is sneak and a cheat.

The same goes for an MP who encourages or participates in sneaking or cheating.

I don’t know the full facts, but if things are as they seem, then Green is basically a cheat. He shouldn’t have been arrested, but that doesn’t make him any less disgusting.

Another alternative is to accept that this conduct, undertaken by all parties, has probably been going on for centuries and should be left well alone. If someone gets caught, they get sacked. It’s a fair cop. End of story. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

DavidT,

I think you and I are closer on this than I suspected.

How would the Constitutional Renewal Bill change things?

Civil Service - The role, governance and values of the Civil Service are not set in Parliamentary legislation. The Government believes it is right to include measures to enshrine the principles and values of the Civil Service in Law.

Public consultation on a Civil Service Act was launched in November 2004, and the responses to that consultation are contributing to taking forward the commitments in the Governance of Britain Green Paper. The Government will consult with stakeholders including the Public Administration Select Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Civil Service Commissioners, devolved administrations and Civil Service unions.

If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

Who says it ‘aint broke?

It’s not inconceivable that a civil servant could bring down a government not because s/he has exposed lies or malpractice, but because s/he has given his/her preferred politcal party a cummulative policy advantage through leaks not in the public interest, but the opposition’s interest.

If this isn’t something that should concern us, then I don’t know what is.

I don’t know about the US civil service, but isn’t the UK variant’s putative politicisation a symptom of their dislocation from any meaningful role as civil servants in the traditional sense?

Given that MPs role these days is confined to runnerstamping Brussels’ directives and finding ways to implement them in UK law, civil servants have become a second tier of bureacratic automatons; recruited for their ability to think ‘on message’ rather than any independent notions of intelligence.

How would Conservatives feel about a Labour opposition co-ordinating informants in the civil service when they are in power?

I thought that had already happened: witness the last 30 odd years of Gramscian hegemonic creep.

When Westminster gains a degree of autonomy from the globalists and their 5th column advocates in the establishment, there might be a reversal of this phenomenon. I don’t see how bringing an entirely new civil service will change any of that when its politicos of all persuasions who have contributed to the accountability gap.

I think it is unhealthy for the civil service to contain civil servants who have decided that they will act as spies, on an ongoing basis, for a party which did not win an election and are not in power.

All power to the executive?

In fact, the civil servant in question leaked to a parliamentarian who serves the electorate and to whom, through his membership of parliament, the executive is accountable. It’s striking how the analysis you and others have put forward on this issue has continually elided the right of the electorate to know what the executive is doing in their name.

Once again, Commissar Brownie reveals his authotarian credentials - the whole point of HM Opposition is to undermine the elected administration, you totalitatian knob

Utilising party spies in an “indepdendent” civil service? Since when? My taxes pay the wages of fuckers like Galley. I’m a member of the public and it’s not in my interest for him to do whatever he can to give his preferred party every conceivable political advantage.

If you took your head out of your arse for one second and thought about the implications of this not just when Labour are in power, but when your mob are, you might just get the point.

I think it is unhealthy for the civil service to contain civil servants who have decided that they will act as spies, on an ongoing basis, for a party which did not win an election and are not in power. The Government cannot trust advice from its civil service, and cannot discuss matters with the civil service, if they know that one of their number is actually working against them, and for a political party which wants them to fail, publicly. This would be so whether the party in power was Tory or Labour.

There are already ’spies…for a party which did not win an election and are not in power’ in all political parties, not the least the government. Have you heard of Peter Mandelson?

What about politicians like Denis McShane, who crow about ‘democratic values’, despite the fact that he has purposely been trying to undermine them for his entire working life.

“This is regrettable; there are distinct advantages in having a non-partisan civil service.”

When I worked for a government minister in the 1980s, his civil “servants”(sic) persistently attempted to frustrate his agenda. This went far beyond merely advising agisnt courses of action - they systematically witheld information, and he would often find vital data “misfiled” inside tedious files near the bottom of his red boxes. Sir Humphrey was a pale shadow of the way these guys worked.

On similar lines, my sister worked in the House of Commons libarary until recently, and used to brag about how she would do a less though research job for Tory MPs, and deliberately slant her research to support her own views on any particular topic.

It is a fallacy to suggest that the UK has a non-partisan civil service. The Civil Service is highly partisan - somewhat left-leaning, but mainly partisan in support of the initerests of the burocracy and the status quo.

Morgoth:

If we’re going to get into the whole business of past political misdemeanour’s then by all means let’s open up the entire shit can, in which case you can put me down straight away for a full public audit of the Tory Party’s finances and Lord Ashcroft’s tax records.

It’s striking how the analysis you and others have put forward on this issue has continually elided the right of the electorate to know what the executive is doing in their name.

It might have escaped your notice, Guff, but I am (part of) the electorate. As much part of it as you are. I decide what is in my interest to know, not some partisan party hack who just happens to have a job at the HO. He doesn’t have carte blanche to reveal every bit of tittle-tattle he can get his hands on just on the off-chance that his political predilections overlap with mine.

Brownie.
The question that makes Tory front benchers most uncomfortable at the moment is “did you take legal advice on what constitutes an inducement to a civil servant”
Stephen Pound has asked Grieve and Cameron so far and both refuse to answer.

tim,

You’re right. And Nick Robinson (for one) is clear that they did seek and were given such advice.

What did Cameron know and when did he know it? It’s Green-gate!

or ‘Galley-gate’.

They’ve both got something going for them.

He’s party to a politically-motivated deception that is specifically designed to undermine the *elected* administration.

Isn’t it the job, if not the duty, for opposition parties to undermine governing parties? If not, then what are they for? The issue here is whether they broke any rules or laws whilst doing so

Isn’t it the job, if not the duty, for opposition parties to undermine governing parties?

Not according to Brownie and his ilk. They seem to believe that parliament should be accoutable to the executive and helping it with its enquiries, which must not be prejudged until they are complete, the police being a law to themselves and the ultimate authority in the land, you understand.

How Green was my Galley

If we’re going to get into the whole business of past political misdemeanour’s then by all means let’s open up the entire shit can, in which case you can put me down straight away for a full public audit of the Tory Party’s finances and Lord Ashcroft’s tax records

A Labour stooge is a fine one to talk about party finances given pretty much the whole of Labour financing for the last two decades has been one illegal and corrupt act after another. Ecclestone, Hinduja Brothers, Mandleson (twice, soon to be a third), Cash for Questions, Keith Vaz and DOZENS of other Labour Sleeze incidents.

This current government has been far and away the most venal and corrupt government in the history of the United Kingdom. Now, its not content with lying and smearing about anyone who gets in its way, its now having its political opponents arrested.

The Yardarm is too good for Labour cunts.

He’s party to a politically-motivated deception that is specifically designed to undermine the *elected* administration.

Reply:

Isn’t it the job, if not the duty, for opposition parties to undermine governing parties?

Yeah, I think the key point is that the politically-motivated deception is being orchestrated by someone whom we rely upon to to be independent. When an opposition MP is in cahoots with such a person, we should be bothered.

Not according to Brownie and his ilk. They seem to believe that parliament should be accoutable to the executive and helping it with its enquiries, which must not be prejudged until they are complete, the police being a law to themselves and the ultimate authority in the land, you understand.

Wear a hat in the sun, pal.

O/T Top quote of the day

Ian Paisley Junior last night revealed that he had turned down the chance to take part in Bushtucker Trials in the jungle on the other side of the world.

When asked why, he laughed: “Why do you think? As someone put it to me: think George Galloway.”

When asked why, he laughed: “Why do you think? As someone put it to me: think George Galloway.”

First time in my life I’ve ever agreed with that annoying gobshite (Baby Doc, that is).

Morgoth:

This current government has been far and away the most venal and corrupt government in the history of the United Kingdom.

You do realise this puts you in the same mental camp as those who say things like Gitmo Bay is worse than the Gulags and that democratic governments are less democratic than places like Cuba? i.e. a raving fucking loon.

Now Neil D is putting Morgoth in a camp.

It’s executive power gone mad, I tell you.

The Yardarm is too good for Labour cunts.

This is just you playing up to your online stereotype, isn’t it? I mean, you’re not actually like this in real life, are you?

Greg, Alistair Campbell wasn’t a civil servant, he was not employed or subject to head of the civil service.

Like a lot of commentators however, i agree the civil service certainly isn’t neutral. The debate over ID cards highlights the lack of neutrality, both sides disprove in opposition but suddenly change when in government. I wonder why??

Working in local government I certainly see the merit of senior officers either being elected or appointed by parties as at present they hide behind an air of neutrality that isn’t really there.

This is just you playing up to your online stereotype, isn’t it? I mean, you’re not actually like this in real life, are you?

If completely fucking up the country and its prospects for the best part of the next century isn’t worthy of the yardarm, I don’t know what is.