Quiet of late

[patman post]

That is the best laugh I have had for weeks.

I smiled at that too...

[papasmurf]

 Johnson and Cummings are trying to sort that out (no doubt by installing completely impartial and unbiased people).

That is the best laugh I have had for weeks.

[Javert]

I thought political and party appointees were also party employees and not infiltrated into the full time Civil Service, but sometimes classed as temporary and not put on the government payroll.

If that's not the case, then I believe it should be...

They are.



I think Toots is saying that the Labour government in the 1990s filled the civil service up with Labour Communists and the current Johnson and Cummings are trying to sort that out (no doubt by installing completely impartial and unbiased people).

[patman post]

I believe that the Civil Service has always been seen to be A-political. When Blair became PM he infiltrated Whitehall depts with Labour minded overseers (for want of a better word). There was a lot of comment at the time and as far as I am aware we are still suffering from a politicisation of Whitehall. This seemed evident during Brexit and as far as I am aware BJ is concerned to return the Civil Service to pre Blair days.



Here's another article - but there are plenty  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk">//https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk

Government tries to use Civil Service to implement the policies they were elected for.  Still not seeing why this is a problem.



All governments will need to appoint civil servants.  All governments will have their opposition attempting to accuse them of politicising this.  Other than the gossip and propoganda of right wing newspapers do you actually have any evidence to back this up?



Also you didn't answer my other point - the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years - they can't blame the Civil Service staffing on a Labour government that was voted out 10 years ago.  Your articles you are posting are from the 1990s

I thought political and party appointees were also party employees and not infiltrated into the full time Civil Service, but sometimes classed as temporary and not put on the government payroll.

If that's not the case, then I believe it should be...

[Javert]

I believe that the Civil Service has always been seen to be A-political. When Blair became PM he infiltrated Whitehall depts with Labour minded overseers (for want of a better word). There was a lot of comment at the time and as far as I am aware we are still suffering from a politicisation of Whitehall. This seemed evident during Brexit and as far as I am aware BJ is concerned to return the Civil Service to pre Blair days.



Here's another article - but there are plenty  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk">//https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk

Government tries to use Civil Service to implement the policies they were elected for.  Still not seeing why this is a problem.



All governments will need to appoint civil servants.  All governments will have their opposition attempting to accuse them of politicising this.  Other than the gossip and propoganda of right wing newspapers do you actually have any evidence to back this up?



Also you didn't answer my other point - the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years - they can't blame the Civil Service staffing on a Labour government that was voted out 10 years ago.  Your articles you are posting are from the 1990s

[T00ts]

Toots I'm still not clear what you think is wrong with the civil service appointment you have linked?  Do you have an article to show that this Rachel Lomax is secretly a Labour politician or something?  If not I'm still not getting the point?



Or are you saying that Labour governments should only appoint people who support the Conservative Party as Civil Servants and this is what is being corrected now?

I believe that the Civil Service has always been seen to be A-political. When Blair became PM he infiltrated Whitehall depts with Labour minded overseers (for want of a better word). There was a lot of comment at the time and as far as I am aware we are still suffering from a politicisation of Whitehall. This seemed evident during Brexit and as far as I am aware BJ is concerned to return the Civil Service to pre Blair days.



Here's another article - but there are plenty  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk">//https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/07/Whitehall.uk

[Javert]

Did you not live through Tony Blair's time in office? I remember it clearly and I am sure there will be plenty of refs to it. Here is one but there are plenty of others



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jun/01/Whitehall.uk">//https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jun/01/Whitehall.uk

Toots I'm still not clear what you think is wrong with the civil service appointment you have linked?  Do you have an article to show that this Rachel Lomax is secretly a Labour politician or something?  If not I'm still not getting the point?



Or are you saying that Labour governments should only appoint people who support the Conservative Party as Civil Servants and this is what is being corrected now?

[T00ts]

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean so you'll have to be a lot more specific.



Secondly, the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years - shouldn't they have fixed whatever you are referring to by now?

Did you not live through Tony Blair's time in office? I remember it clearly and I am sure there will be plenty of refs to it. Here is one but there are plenty of others



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jun/01/Whitehall.uk">//https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jun/01/Whitehall.uk

[Javert]

Blair was the last to break the insitutions in Whitehall with his dear friend and sidekick Campbell. Suddenly lefty people got to be in charge  and still do their damage today.  Today's efforts are to redress that and it's not popular in the corridors of real power.

Firstly, I have no idea what you mean so you'll have to be a lot more specific.



Secondly, the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years - shouldn't they have fixed whatever you are referring to by now?

[T00ts]

Blair was the last to break the insitutions in Whitehall with his dear friend and sidekick Campbell. Suddenly lefty people got to be in charge  and still do their damage today.  Today's efforts are to redress that and it's not popular in the corridors of real power.

[Javert]

There is nothing special about Cummings, other than being an arrogant bastard.

Actually I'm not sure that's true.  I think he does have some talent at breaking things - he has had some pretty huge successes at convincing the UK public that certain long held institutions like our relationship with Europe, our system of government, the civil service etc are all completely corrupt and need totally destroying to fix them.



It's difficult to argue that he is not highly talented at achieving that.



The issue is that he seems to think that if something's not working quite right, the best way to fix the problem is to completely destroy it, and then hope that something perfect will miraculously arrive in its place.  He is also too arrogant to realise that whilst he might be the right person for the wrecking job, he is not the right person to create the new version.



History has shown that those who completely destroy an institution in the hope that something better will replace it, are pretty much always proved wrong.

[Thomas]

I am. Why? Do you think I am in a America?

no feckin outer space mate.

Nonetheless you speak like Brexit is a good thing

,



its what people voted for in a free and fair referendum , so they need to get on and deliver it before anyhting will move on.

but aren't aware that an independent Scotland will join the EU.

yes .

I am here specifically for that very reason.

What would you like to know ?

[B0ycey]

I thought you said you were in scotland?

I am. Why? Do you think I am in a America?



Nonetheless you speak like Brexit is a good thing, but aren't aware that an independent Scotland will join the EU. I am here specifically for that very reason.

[Thomas]

You said the political divide was a good thing.

Sigh#



No

 The political spectrum in the UK has never been wider.

and i replied its a good thing.

To whom?

Me for a start.

We are already in Trumps America

I thought you said you were in scotland?

The political divide has never been wider.

Good. Again , i ask whats bad about that?

So no it isn't a good thing.

Its feckin great news for the ordinary folk in scotland watching the old two party system being demolished and the new political spectrum being put into place over the last decade or so.



Not interested in bringing down any clas divide mate , start with enacting brexit then take it from there.

[B0ycey]

What revolution? What chains?

You said the political divide was a good thing. To whom? The bourgeois or the proletariat? We are already in Trumps America. The political divide has never been wider. And who that benefits depends on your POV. So no it isn't a good thing. Not unless people bring down the class divide. Then it perhaps is. ::