The Politicisation of the Civil Service

There was a time when the UK was governed by Parliament and the Civil Service. Those two organisations were very different, but needed to cooperate to produce sensible laws and regulations. It was for that reason that Parliament and the Civil Service were kept separate from each other. Politicians produced policies and Civil Servants turned those policies into draft laws and regulations. I have no doubt that there was benign collusion between the two so that policies were constitutional, do-able and cost effective. Even the Opposition had access to Government Departments to talk about its own policies. In any case, Political Parties had their own advisers, no doubt drawn from the ‘expertise’ of knowledgeable people.

There was a time when the Civil Service was notorious for employing only the very brightest of young people. If a position required A level qualifications, only those youths with the top grades were accepted. The same applied to O levels and Uni qualifications. The Civil Service was the elite. It had to be because politicians could come from anywhere since they were elected. They did not have to be intelligent – they needed only to be popular.

There was a time when the Conservative Party Leader ‘EMERGED’. I suppose that you have to be of a certain age to remember that. There was no election of the Party Leader. If a new Leader was needed, then a person was presented at a conference and declared Leader by acclamation. Who decided whom that person should be?

I don’t thing that that situation has really changed. For example, who decided that Cameron should be a candidate for election? I thought that it was very weird how confident and word perfect he was as he strutted the stage at the party convention at which he was elected Leader. How much time did he spend learning his speech off by heart? How much was he tutored? Who wrote his speech? Everything was just too perfect. So who are the people in the background who make such decisions?

There is also something peculiar about how Corbyn came to be the Leader of the Labour Party. I have been reading about the Labour investigation of how the polls got the ‘voting intentions’ prior to the GE so wrong. The investigation was chaired by ‘Lady’ Margaret Beckett. You can read about it here:

https://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/learning-the-lessons/

What struck me when I read that analysis was how structured must be the Labour (and Tory) reactions to polls must be. There must be strategies already in place, should the polls reflect a particular situation. For example, had the polls shown a significant Tory lead, then much more effort would have been made by Labour in the marginal constituencies.

It seems to me to be true that the failure of the polls was what threw Labour into confusion after the Tory win. Perhaps they expected to be the party with most seats and that the Liberals would join them in a coalition. They did not foresee the decimation of the Liberals or the rise of the SNP. Thus, when Miliband resigned, there was no obvious candidate for Party Leader. The Far Left exploited the uncertainty and got Corbyn elected.

===

In the above paragraphs, I have led the reader along a path. I went from the former, general proposition of the real separation of Parliament and Civil Service to the artificiality of polls, party leaders and elections.

The POST DEMOCRATIC AGE is real, and we must try to understand how it came about.

In times gone by, a political party got most seats in Parliament. That party formed a ‘government’, although I think that the word ‘government’ was the wrong word. The ‘Government’ had not changed at the GE. What word could we use to describe the Cabinet and the Ministers? I don’t know, but it would have to be something like ‘Policy Makers’. For example, it might have a wish to create Flood Defences. But what happens if a previous Parliament has accepted, on the nod, a EU directive to stop dredging rivers? How is it possible to correct that error? The reality is that it is not possible. The directives are written in stone. You cannot alter the writing. You would have to smash the stone to pieces to destroy the writing.

===

It is also reasonable to ask how NGOs/Quangos came to exist. It is awfully easy to believe that they just ‘appeared’. Perhaps they seemed to be the most efficient way to handle some government responsibilities. That would be very easy to accept as reasonable.

But some events have revealed an underlying structure to these bodies. A good example was the flooding of the Somerset Levels last year. A Quango known as ‘Environment’ was set up under the leadership of a POLITICIAN. That Quango brought the dredging of rivers to a halt so as to promote ‘nature’, or ‘natural’. Right. The result was the drowning of ‘nature’ and ‘natural’. The reality, as regards the Somerset Levels, was that ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ in those areas were no longer swimming creatures after two hundred years of draining.

But what was alarming about the Somerset Levels flooding was the decent into blaming. Yes, the political appointees were totally to blame, ie, Lord Smith. But there were two things that should have immediately followed:

  1. The return of ‘The Environment’ to Civil Service control, and,
  2. The end of EU dictats.

===

What is important is that the Head of the ‘Environment’ Quango was a POLITICIAN. So we have unelected, amateur politicians running the EU, giving orders to unelected amateur politicians who run quangos, who deliver a package of instructions to the amateur ‘Policy Makers’ in the Cabinet.

Is it any wonder that the UN, WHO, IPCC, EU are hopelessly corrupt?

===

When the distinction between Politician and Civil Servant was blurred, it was bound to be the case that charlatans would invade. ‘Charlatan’ does not necessarily mean ‘thief’. It can just as easily mean ‘zealot’. But what is common among charlatans is that they are quite prepared to tell lies. At the moment, Ecigs are their target. It is no accident that the UN, WHO, EU are anti-ecig. There is deliberate collusion.

Weird, is it not, that Prime Minister Cameron, could destroy the merchants of doom about ecigs in an instant. It would be so, so simple. All he would need to do is endorse ecigs, with suitable safety features, such as those normally applied to bleach and such. Considering that millions of Brits are now using ecigs, it makes no sense for TC to be involved. Ecigs have nothing to do with TC.

===

Our Nation has a problem. That problem is the insertion of quangos into government. It is perfectly obvious that those quangos are destructive. It is obvious because the whole purpose of those quangos and NGOs is to destroy. That is almost always their purpose. There is little doubt that those quangos and NGOs are creations of the EU.

===

I do not understand Cameron and co. I really do not. Migrant problems are just passing things, even if the are urgent. But they are not the important things.

The one most important thing about the EU is that the UK can be FORCED to adopt a directive with which it disagrees. But it is worse than that. There are forces which control the EU,  coming from the IPCC and the FCTC, which Cameron or Corbyn have no alternative to enact laws about.

Erm… ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! They have no such duty. IT IS A LIE!! The UK Parliament is still supreme. I was amazed some time ago when a Minister said in Parliament that it had no option to but to pass the law because it was an EU directive.

===

Is it any wonder that the EU is on the verge of collapse? It has always been a spider’s web of corruption, other than the original idea of closer relationships between THE PEOPLE. Why do we not remember the artificially created hatred of Germans? Why do we not remember the artificial hatred of Brits by the Nazis. In fact, why are the artificial hatreds still permitted by Government of Smokers?

I am not saying that individual hatreds should be monitored. They do not matter. What matters is persecution of minorities. But, just for fun, here is a comment by someone:

Errol
January 30, 2016 at 12:07 pm

It *isn’t* harmless though. It’s a disgusting poison.

If someone is terminally ill and dying from lung cancer brought on by smoking and they want to keep smoking then refuse them entry to the hospital. Save money on drugs and let them die. Why waste resources?

 

The ignorance displayed by that comment is amazing, but such comments are very common. What can you do about such ignorance? But it is also of the greatest importance for ‘academics’ to research how it became possible for people like ‘Errol’ to become so deluded.

The importance of such research comes from the misuse by Tobacco Control of studies and statistics. In very general terms, Universities should be encouraged to research the research to estimate the corruption.

Alternatively, Universities should be forced by Government to stick to FACTS, and to state FACTS. That is what they exist for. They have no place in stating opinions.

====

====

My point is that Quangos and NGOs are GOVERNMENT, and they are accountable. It is sad that such bodies have been extruded from the Civil Service where they should belong, and are corrupt.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Politicisation of the Civil Service”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “If someone is terminally ill and dying from lung cancer brought on by smoking”

    I wonder how he would show that smoking was the sole cause?

    I also doubt that he would be concerned with proving such obvious concerns.

    • junican Says:

      That’s the whole point. It is clear that the commenter has not thought at all. A person who is terminally ill needs palliative care until he dies. It has nothing to do with smoking at all – either before the terminal diagnosis or after. Did I hear someone say, “First, do no harm….”?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: