Boris Johnson backs trade union campaign to ungag civil servants Boris Johnson and the FDA trade union are calling for the government to lift new restrictions on civil servants' contact with the media, which was quietly implemented following an update to the Civil Service Code slipped through earlier this month. The addition to the Civil Service Code earlier this month requires that all …
Civil servants should be allowed to talk to anyone if all they are doing is offering facts: e.g. "How many unemployed are there this week?" or "What did the minister say last week?"
Civil Servants should not, however, provide opinion.e g. "Is the unemployment rate too high?"
Now, I accept, that it can sometimes be that the lines between fact and opinion can be a little grey, but you get the idea.
Ministers should NOT be involved in handling facts. They'll only distort them.
When you take the time to think about the power ministers have with NO understanding of it, it is scary...
Just look how many dumb comments about Encryption that Cameroon has made, or the foolishness that Theresa May tried to introduce with monitoring...
These are subjects where they should get expert advice of the VERY independent kind, i.e. people who are paid no matter who is in power....
If it's any help I can confirm the former* under secretary responsible for railways knowth not one end of a train from t'other. I'm slightly hazy as to whether or not anyone is even pretending ministers know the slightest thing about their briefs any more - it doesn't seem to be mentioned much. Presumably they're just meant to "manage" i.e. ignore civil servants, facts, etc. and get on with doing whatever their friends have asked them to do. This suggests a line of demarcation where by ministers ONLY give opinions and civil servants stick to facts. It can't make things any worse.
*thank $deity, the author makes a good point there
I'll drink some more tea shall I?
"* As Parliament has been prorogued for May's general election, the country currently has no MPs and therefore no ministers. The sky has, so far, not fallen in."
One's position as minister is independent of their presence, or otherwise, in Parliament. Ministerial positions are retained. Frankly we should be more impressed that across our many centuries of parliamentary government, we've had frequent periods of executives with no government oversight and the sky still hasn't fallen!
You mean back when parliament used to occasionally meet once a year or so because the people elected had jobs/lives outside of parliament? (I think king Charles the first had one meeting of parliament in two decades, which is perhaps a bit too much of a gap.)
Wouldn't it be nice if we limited politicians to one day in parliament a quarter. That'd sharply reduce the number of crap laws simply by reducing the total number enacted.
Firstly: A member remains a member until his replacement is elected, (unless he has resigned, in which case he is no longer a member once parliament is dissolved).
Secondly, being a minister does not depend on being an MP. You might be a peer, for example, like Lord Adonis.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
