Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Is there anything Hungary a few years back and present day UK have in common? Some factor that could explain this?

 

[Sheilbh]

I won't read through that long a text what do you mean Tamas in Number 10? I don't take offense at that idea, but I do at being likened to Cummings.

I said it at the time and it's still true - from everything I've read including his own comments he was pushing for hard lockdowns early. He's very critical of Johnson and the government for lying. Also lots about lack of transparency and process.

All stuff I'd expect Cummings to say.

Also, what's the deal with the Guardian going all in on firing up anti-BBC frenzy? I find it highly suspicious and ridiculous that the government digs out the old case of a BBC journo lying to Diana to get her to be honest, and use it as casus belli to probably try and turn the BBC into a Tory mouthpiece.

How did the government do this? How are they involved at all?

There's been reports about this for a while about doubts - I think actually largely covered by the BBC (the BBC reporting on BBC wrong-doing is a routine - Kirsty Wark hosting Newsnight and saying "the BBC was asked for a comment but did not provide one" ). So the BBC appointed a retired Supreme Court judge to do an investigation and now he's published his conclusions.

And I do think they are pretty shocking. There's huge chutzpah in Fleet Street having a go at it - but he forged bank statements to help convince someone to do an interview, the BBC covered it up and even after he moved on he was subsequently re-hired and promoted (to "Editor of Religious Affairs" in BBC News). The big issues are that his immediate boss who covered it up subsequently became Director General of the BBC and his other famous interview was with Michael Jackson and I slightly wonder if that shoe is yet to drop.

As I say it's nothing compared to phone hacking or Fleet Street - but it's the BBC. They should have higher standards.

I understand the thought of a big competitor for news-providing being knocked down a few pegs is a comforting thought, but what is being attempted is far more sinister. I mean, Priti Patel is planning to drastically reorganise the BBC. What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that?!
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/23/charter-review-is-significant-moment-for-bbc-says-priti-patel

She was the minister on the Sunday morning shows. It's not her department which is why she refers to her colleagues. These are not the lines of someone planning a drastic reorganisation - it's a politician filling space in a quesiton that's not about their area

"Next year is an opportunity when it comes to the mid-term review of the BBC charter for government and the BBC to absolutely look at new ways of governance of the institution, the organisation," she said.

"My colleagues in government will absolutely make sure that that is used as the right opportunity not just for reflection but to enhance governance and accountability of the BBC."

"There will be a very, very significant moment now, there's no question about this, where lessons have to be learned. Yes, within the BBC itself, within the leadership of the BBC, journalists, and people who work for the BBC too, but ultimately, for governance and accountability that would lead to public trust and confidence in the way the BBC operates and the way in which is conducts its business." [...]

She said: "It's important to recognise the criticism and the deep concern associated with the report that was published by Lord Dyson.

"The BBC, one of our great institutions, its reputation has been compromised. They will have to reflect on the report and spend a great deal of time, I think, looking at how they can regain and rebuild the trust and confidence of the British public.

There's always lots of stories about difficulties between BBC and government when it's charter renewal time (which isn't until 2027) - especially when it's a Tory government. This is just a mid-charter review and they're talking about governance and accountablility which you'd expect. The Tories were last attempting to dismantle the BBC during the Charter renewal in 2016 and 2017 - in the end they mainly imposed binding diversity targets and a move for the BBC to produce less competitive/commercial shows.

It just fuels my growing concern that in the background there is a push towards an Orban-esque far-right autocratic switch.

Which I don't share. There's some stuff that is alarming and bad, but there's also a lot which we've read a million times before about a previous government with a big majority or a Tory government. It's a bit like Labour's routine election line that it's the last election to save the NHS

This is one of those things where I think we're hurt by the Guardian being the only quality paper that's available without a subscription. It is the paper of the liberal left - it's the paper I love and read regularly, but it has a perspective. Because it's still accessible it's widely shared and I think it was better (in the 2000s) when you could also read the take of the Times (establishment centre) and, for your sins, the Telegraph.

[Tamas]

All I know is that I sat through talk like that you quoted regarding the media as a whole and have seen what it resulted in. Hopefully you are right of the government being some combination of toothless and do-gooders.

[Sheilbh]

All I know is that I sat through talk like that you quoted regarding the media as a whole and have seen what it resulted in. Hopefully you are right of the government being some combination of toothless and do-gooders.

They're not toothless or do-gooders. In some ways they're really unusual (for good and bad), but in most ways they're either like a normal Tory government or a normal government with a large majority.

But as I say these sort of stories are standard. The Thatcher government was ideologically opposed to the BBC's funding model (and many Tories still are) and they hated the Tories coverage of the Falklands and the Troubles. It happened in the mid-2000s in the context of Iraq, the Hutton report and the death of Dr Kelly - with a government obsessed with media management. It happened in the 2016 renewal (Tory opposition again).

[Zanza]

#brexitbenefits #canzuk 

By the way, the 14 million GBP clothes imported from Australia are apparently about 0.05% of the UK clothing market. BMW also considers to move production of one of the two iconic British products to the continent midterm.

[The Brain]

8% cheaper Vegemite.

[Sheilbh]

I mean it's better than not having a deal

The right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange has done a report on proposed reforms of the Civil Service/Government. This is one of those things where I look at the recommendations and I think it's very hard to see why these shouldn't be introduced, and it's quite surprising some of them haven't already been made

The most contentious will probably be the first couple:

Renewal of Permanent Secretaries' contracts should be conditional on their track record for reform.
Ministers should be able to issue letters of strategic priorities to Permanent Secretaries.

I get that there is a fear and risk of politicisation here. But I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that ministers should be able to give broad strategic direction to their senior civil servants and there should be a mechanism for replacing them. At the minute I think only the Prime Minister is really able to change the Permanent Secretary (unless, like Priti Patel, the bully them until they resign). But to take the Home Office as an example - there's been over 80 Home Secretaries and only 25-30 Permanent Secretaries. Obviously the political churn doesn't help but given that people keep identifying structural and cultural issues surely some of the responsibility has to go to the civil service leadership and there should be some way to change that/make them pay attention to reform.

The rest seem reasonably benign and very much the sort of thing you'd expect to already be in place or that you'd expect in other large public or private sector bodies (big business, NHS etc):

Ministers must be left for longer in post, with fewer reshuffles.
The Civil Service should take drastic steps to reduce unnecessary turnover and movement within the Civil Service and do more to attract, support and retain external recruits. Promotion must be based on talent and potential, not time served.
A pay 'capabilities' premium should be introduced to reward staff who have or acquire recognised professional qualifications.
The Government should introduce a range of ministerial training courses.
The Government should introduce a formal induction process for Special Advisers, in order to increase awareness of how Whitehall works.
The Government must urgently clarify the leadership of Digital, Data and Technology in Whitehall.
The Government should establish a Digital and Data Audit Office, accompanied by a corresponding Parliamentary Select Committee. It should provide technical and ethical scrutiny of digital products and services, exploring their code base, user experience and technical resilience.
The system of public appointments needs to be fully professionalised.

On the recruitment point when I was moving jobs I applied for a very interesting civil service legal role in my area. In the time it took to go from application/deadline to first assessment/interview stage I'd already been offered two other jobs - and accepted one. I'm fairly sure it was probably because they already had the internal candidate identified and went so slow to make sure that no external candidates were available/still interested, or they're just really incompetent.

And I know of fast-track civil servants who are my age so early-mid thirties who've already been in 6 different roles/departments. The impression I get is that it's discouraged to stay in one job or department for too long if you want to climb the ladder. And while I think there is probably a decent benefit from having people with general experience, I feel like that's probably a little too much.

[celedhring]

8% cheaper Vegemite.

Aussie marmite. Stuff of nightmares 

[Oexmelin]

The right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange has done a report on proposed reforms of the Civil Service/Government. This is one of those things where I look at the recommendations and I think it's very hard to see why these shouldn't be introduced, and it's quite surprising some of them haven't already been made

I am pretty sure there is a Yes Minister episode dedicated to each of these proposals...

[Sheilbh]

Yep. And I don't expect any of them to actually happen - as the report notes there's a history of governments commissioning reports into civil service/government reform or announcing grand reform agendas. For some reason they always seem to peter out having only made a minor and mostly decorative change.

[Tamas]

When election defeats for the reigning government were still a thing in Hungary (an old decadence we have gotten rid of), it was par the course to have bloodbaths at various civil service jobs. Whether that's something we desire here I don't know. I understand why we don't want people to be nailed down to their chairs no matter what, but I also understand why we don't want their jobs to be dependent on personal loyalty to Boris Johnson or some of the other giants in charge at the moment.

[Sheilbh]

When election defeats for the reigning government were still a thing in Hungary (an old decadence we have gotten rid of), it was par the course to have bloodbaths at various civil service jobs. Whether that's something we desire here I don't know. I understand why we don't want people to be nailed down to their chairs no matter what, but I also understand why we don't want their jobs to be dependent on personal loyalty to Boris Johnson or some of the other giants in charge at the moment.

Yeah.

I think we are at the extreme end of non-political - so from my understanding no civil servants change when there's a change of government. The clue is in the name "Permanent" Secretaries - the civil service is always there impartially serving the government of the day. In that documentary I posted on the Home Office they noted that there had been over 80 Home Secretaries but around 25 Permanent Secretaries. In the department they have a wall of portraits of all their Home Secretaries and Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary 2007-9) said she felt it was rather making a point that she was temporary while they'd still be there - especially because, on her first day, she had to walk them putting up her portrait at the end of the row on her way to her office

Consequence of this is Yes, Minister. So there's been moves to introduce more political appointees who serve the minister directly (and lose their job in a re-shuffle/election loss) that's been developing since Wilson in the 60s who found the civil service very conservative and resistant to change. It peaked under New Labour because everyone hates special advisers but I actually think they have a role to play and are important to actually deliver what the government wants to - and they are elected on a platform. But they're not civil servants - some of them will be policy wonks, some are in communications, some handle the political side (liaising with the party or interest groups).

We are at a new peak of special advisers - but as of December there were still only 116 special advisers. It's the highest figure since pre-2010 but I think in terms of global comparisons of the number of political appointees in government it's pretty low.

Obviously I don't think ministers should be able to replace senior civil servants - not least because of how common reshuffles are - but I feel like they should be able to set priorities and there should be someway to make the Permanent Secretary's contract depend on how well the department's delivered the agenda(s) of their bosses. I think Permanent Secretaries are normally appointed for about 10 years so they normally survive a lot of ministers.

I think the exception is the Cabinet Secretary who is the head of the civil service and directly works with the PM. Again they used to last for about a decade (so Robin Butler was Cabinet Secretary for Thatcher, Major and Blair). But it's become far more short-term in recent years - I think a few were casualties of Blair-Brown rows, and I think Blair burned through them in his time. It might settle down again but given that PMs aren't re-shuffled and normally last for a few years I think it's reasonable that they are able to choose - though I don't think it should be automatic that they go when there's a change of PM.

[Sheilbh]

Cummings continues to add to his Twitter thread - now with photos of COBRA briefing papers. His evidence will be interesting if MPs avoid the temptation to just talk about Barnard's Castle for 2 hours:

Dominic Cummings
@Dominic2306
43/ Lots of hacks have lost their minds. Herd immunity wasn't 'a secret strategy', it was THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC EXPLAINED ON TV/RADIO STRATEGY! Halpern, on SAGE, literally explained it on radio explicitly, 11/3/20, as did others!!
44/ The whole 'flatten the curve' plan A was to get herd immunity by summer & avoid 2nd peak during annual NHS winter crisis. That's why our official graphs had *ONE peak over by summer*! COBR docs/graphs describe herd immunity as 'the optimal single peak strategy' etc
45/ What happened is a/ panic about the phrase, 'comms disaster'. b/ We ditched the herd immunity plan and shifted to Plan B, suppression, which previously the Gvt said/thought would be worse cos it wd lead to a 2nd peak in winter 2020 during the annual NHS crisis
46/ A COBR doc from week of 9/3/20 explains official thinking behind Plan A: ie. suppression either won't work or wd lead to 2nd peak during NHS winter crisis, so the advised herd immunity approach was what DHSC/Cabinet Office described as 'single peak optimal strategy'

47/ In that week it became clear neither Hancock/CABOFF understood herd immunity effects: 100s of 1000s choking to death + no NHS for *anybody* for months + dead unburied + econ implosion; so we moved to Plan B: suppression + Manhattan Project for drugs/vaccines + test&trace etc
48/ Critical as I am of the PM in all sorts of ways, it's vital to understand the disaster was not just his fault: the official plan was disastrously misconceived, DHSC/CABOFF did not understand this or why, & a PlanB had to be bodged amid total & utter chaos
49/ Jenny Harries told us, the same week herd immunity was the official plan, masks are a 'BAD idea', 'we don't want to disrupt people's lives', acting 'too early we will just pop up with another epidemic peak later'. So Whitehall has promoted her, obviously
50/ 'Herd immunity' was officially seen as UNAVOIDABLE week of 9/3. It wd come either a) in a single peak over by Sep, or b) in a 2nd peak in winter. (a) was seen as easier to manage & less of a catastrophe so it was Plan A. Cf SAGE 13/3: 'a near certainty' suppression>2nd peak

51/ It was in week of 9/3 that we started to figure out Plan B to dodge herd immunity until vaccines. Even AFTER we shifted to PlanB, COBR documents had the 'OPTIMAL single peak strategy' graphs showing 260k dead cos the system was so confused in the chaos, see below

52/ Hodges = wrong: *there was neither an intention to lockdown nor as of Fri13/3 any official plan for doing so*. The SAGE minutes show the opposite of what Dan says they say...
53/ Dan says the SAGE minutes show 'The strategy was to wait for the optimum moment to lockdown'. No. SAGE said *literally the opposite*: lockdown = suppression = 'near certainty' of 2nd peak & this was thought to be much WORSE than single peak/herd immunity by Sep, hence graph

54/ On 14/3 one of the things being screamed at the PM was 'there is *no plan for lockdown* & our current official plan will kill at least 250k & destroy the NHS'. Cf the graph: 'optimal single peak strategy' with 3 interventions. That was the official plan, which was abandoned
55/ Another reason we ditched Plan A was it became clear the official system had given ~no thought to all the second order effects of 250k dying, almost all without ICU care. True deaths wd clearly be much >250k cos there would be *no NHS for anybody for months*

The fact the optimal plan had over 250k deaths

This is a bit like the flu strategy our response was based on which needs total re-working. But the assumption is that there'd be a vaccine within 6 months and lockdowns/social measures aren't possible so the central scenario of the strategy - if it works - is about 300k deaths.

Hopefully that strategy is being updated.

[Josquius]

The low quality of it all helps add to the cold war era "What if there's a war?" planner vibes.

And on the Australia thing- yet again an example of how people don't get numbers.

[Zanza]

I mean it's better than not having a deal

That is rather questionable apparently. It might have a net negative effect on the UK if the economic activity e.g. from farmers that is replaced by imports is bigger than the economic activity generated by higher exports.