This analysis - from a constitutional and governance perspective - is an excellent one. If it were to be read in isolation however, it could create an impression that underestimates the scale of the problem that any return to reasonably good governance faces in the UK. Britain is in a multi-faceted mess....one from which there can now be no turning back without some ugly civil 'turning of the worm'. The reason for this is the decades-long failure of the right-leaning part of the political class to recognise the trojan horse of an academia allowed to become entirely colonised by a leftist intelligentsia (since the 60s at least if not earlier still). Why is this such a huge big deal? Because the hard truth is that most people in our mass-mediated world are intellectual sheep - their most powerful driver is to fit in and to feel good. (And fitting in with the latest 'radical' thing feels especially seductive.) Ironically the academically brightest are actually more prone to this groupthink tendency than more 'proletarian' school leavers. The massive 30-year expansion of tertiary education has inflated this disastrous trend such that the civil service (and legal culture) is now irremediable - full of virtue-signalling, spoilt-brats with scant understanding of traditional scholarship....and in particular of history (the history that, if not learned, must be endlessly repeated etc). A grimly almost Pythonesque example of this came to light recently in relation to 'Prevent' - the civil service arm which is supposed to take measures to interrupt terrorism. Well it turns out that in their 'training' they learn that identifying people as terrorists is (unless they are white ones) 'racist'.
There can be no smooth reversal now out of a cultural implosion and grotesque mess as the one that we (and in varying degrees all other Western nations) have got ourselves into. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
David, that was, without question, the most erudite explanation of why the Civil Service has, in effect, become the equivalent of a political ‘party’, but one which is never subject to the democratic process. For a long time I have laboured to get to grips with how such a state of affairs could have developed and, like Graham Cunningham, I have laid a great deal of the blame upon the educational system, without realising the legal/constitutional basis upon which civil servants are employed.
So, this was a real ‘eye opener’, for which many thanks.
Nevertheless, whilst the article reveals the problem resulting from the concept of treating civil servants as no different to employees in the private sector and lays bare the constitutional principle inherent in the use of ‘perogative powers’, I continue to regard the the main problem as being one of a simple lack of trust by the electorate in the system of representative democracy as being fit for purpose. Why? Because the foundation of a democracy is being offered a choice and those who offer themselves to the electorate are now, with a few exceptions, members of the Uniparty. Throw in another unelected political party, in the form of the Civil Service, and you have the recipe for an absolute administrative disaster, in which no matter what the electoral process provides, we get what we are given ie the illusion of democracy.
I would put the opposite spin on things: the problem is more a lack of trust *in* the electorate by those in positions of power. My next post will address this.
I suspect that the inception of the electorate’s loss of trust in governance was a gradual realisation that all of the main political parties have coalesced around the centre ground. That has resulted in the growing pessimism that it doesn’t really matter which party forms the government of the day ie the ‘Buggins turn’ has taken hold.
The political class is aware that the electorate’s perception is one of pessimism and that fills them with fear of the voter’s realisation of the lack of a truly democratic process, hence their lack of trust in the electorate.
The Civil Service is aware that the electorate has developed a general aversion to change and works to ensure that the Uniparty is steered away from any policy which involves a departure from the centre ground. In doing so, it continues to embed its own system of governance, thus making life easier for itself.
Maintaining your employment involves making your employer believe that you are indispensable and one way to do that is to create a problem, or the impression of a potential problem and then come up with a solution which requires expanding the team/department.
Brexit was a classic example of the creation of potential problems. Unfortunately, the Civil Service had become too reliant on merely rubber stamping the rules and regulations emanating from Brussels and had lost the ability to come up with practical solutions to the problems it created. That, in my opinion, is why Brexit was so fiercely resisted by the Civil Service ‘mandarins’. Deep down, they knew that they had lost the ability to steer the bureaucratic ‘ship of state’, which is now becoming only too apparent.
Great analysis. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this frustration of the elected government by permanent officials, is for top civil servants to be routinely removed from office after an election, and replaced by appointees of the new government (as happens in the USA).
We do seem to be moving that way. Although you say, "It is hard now to imagine circumstances in which a government Minister would be able to simply sack a civil servant on the spot (without later being sued)", one of the first acts of Liz Truss's hapless administration was to sack the permanent secretary at the Treasury.
Of course there is also the phenomenon of government functions being moved out into pseudo-independent "agencies", which often fund themselves by charging fees to the people they regulate. This takes power even further away from our elected government.
Thank you for this magnificent analysis. It is most educational. And thanks also to all who comment. You are all so well informed. I learn such a lot from you as well as from David. I see I am still listed as a Free Subscriber. I have, in fact, signed up as paying subscriber. It will be worth every penny methinks!
Thanks very much for your support, Sean. Probably that's because I haven't set up the Substack to recieve payments yet and it's all free. I may charge in due course but for the time being you've just made a 'pledge' and so won't be charged anything.
Super thought provoking piece David. Bravo. Really informative. Interesting that Blair warned Cameron of the powers if the CS. Of all people I think he trampled on our rights and freedoms more than any modern PM and if he's warning of them, things must be bad. But all this is slowlt coming to light over CS behaviour over recent yrs. Brexit, Covid, immigration, Rwanda, Net Zero, home working etc etc etc. Our system of Governance is failing Democracy. The CS can't produce any competent service we (currently) require, from education, health, energy policy, planning etc etc the list is almost endless. Part of these failures is as a result of Govt over-reach that has been practised since pre-WWII (and defo Post- WWII). Their fingers are in every pie available and they are too remote from reality. This is destroying our country. Over-reach has led to massive expansions of the CS and the electorate don't seem to have woken up to it (yet). I never hear anyone from the CS or Govt arguing for a smaller state.
Finally these powers that seem to have been conferred on the CS haven't resulted in equal or similar employment rights that you would see in the private sector. They have very much resulted in gold plated contracts of employment that most of the private sector could only dream of.
Interesting that you suggested the Judicary was (partially?) politicised back in the 80s? Maybe I have rose tinted glasses. I thought things were better back then in just about everything Govt did.
Think of power as a kind of currency. Then, Diplock appears like a union boss - stuffing his wage and puffing his future negotiating stance. Judge and plaintiff combined. Should have recused himself.
'Public service' - wow! A nice idea that died somewhere between the Victorians and the end of WW2, I think. There is no possibility of reviving the idea of public service in a society that has been deliberately fractured along multi-cultural lines. For 'public service' to exist as a concept, you need a culturally cohesive population with a shared sense of identity and national pride.
The short answer is: don't get me started on that case... The slightly longer answer is that it was not discussed at great length in the Supreme Court's judgment but the two cases share a common philosophy, if I can put it that way, which is that if a minister uses a prerogative power in a way that is in some sense 'fishy', for want of a better term, it is for the courts to police the matter through judicial review (rather than there being a properly political response).
This analysis - from a constitutional and governance perspective - is an excellent one. If it were to be read in isolation however, it could create an impression that underestimates the scale of the problem that any return to reasonably good governance faces in the UK. Britain is in a multi-faceted mess....one from which there can now be no turning back without some ugly civil 'turning of the worm'. The reason for this is the decades-long failure of the right-leaning part of the political class to recognise the trojan horse of an academia allowed to become entirely colonised by a leftist intelligentsia (since the 60s at least if not earlier still). Why is this such a huge big deal? Because the hard truth is that most people in our mass-mediated world are intellectual sheep - their most powerful driver is to fit in and to feel good. (And fitting in with the latest 'radical' thing feels especially seductive.) Ironically the academically brightest are actually more prone to this groupthink tendency than more 'proletarian' school leavers. The massive 30-year expansion of tertiary education has inflated this disastrous trend such that the civil service (and legal culture) is now irremediable - full of virtue-signalling, spoilt-brats with scant understanding of traditional scholarship....and in particular of history (the history that, if not learned, must be endlessly repeated etc). A grimly almost Pythonesque example of this came to light recently in relation to 'Prevent' - the civil service arm which is supposed to take measures to interrupt terrorism. Well it turns out that in their 'training' they learn that identifying people as terrorists is (unless they are white ones) 'racist'.
There can be no smooth reversal now out of a cultural implosion and grotesque mess as the one that we (and in varying degrees all other Western nations) have got ourselves into. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
My next post will address this issue. I think the problem is older and in some ways even worse than what you describe.
David, that was, without question, the most erudite explanation of why the Civil Service has, in effect, become the equivalent of a political ‘party’, but one which is never subject to the democratic process. For a long time I have laboured to get to grips with how such a state of affairs could have developed and, like Graham Cunningham, I have laid a great deal of the blame upon the educational system, without realising the legal/constitutional basis upon which civil servants are employed.
So, this was a real ‘eye opener’, for which many thanks.
Nevertheless, whilst the article reveals the problem resulting from the concept of treating civil servants as no different to employees in the private sector and lays bare the constitutional principle inherent in the use of ‘perogative powers’, I continue to regard the the main problem as being one of a simple lack of trust by the electorate in the system of representative democracy as being fit for purpose. Why? Because the foundation of a democracy is being offered a choice and those who offer themselves to the electorate are now, with a few exceptions, members of the Uniparty. Throw in another unelected political party, in the form of the Civil Service, and you have the recipe for an absolute administrative disaster, in which no matter what the electoral process provides, we get what we are given ie the illusion of democracy.
I would put the opposite spin on things: the problem is more a lack of trust *in* the electorate by those in positions of power. My next post will address this.
You’re correct that the problem works both ways.
But which came first?!!
I suspect that the inception of the electorate’s loss of trust in governance was a gradual realisation that all of the main political parties have coalesced around the centre ground. That has resulted in the growing pessimism that it doesn’t really matter which party forms the government of the day ie the ‘Buggins turn’ has taken hold.
The political class is aware that the electorate’s perception is one of pessimism and that fills them with fear of the voter’s realisation of the lack of a truly democratic process, hence their lack of trust in the electorate.
The Civil Service is aware that the electorate has developed a general aversion to change and works to ensure that the Uniparty is steered away from any policy which involves a departure from the centre ground. In doing so, it continues to embed its own system of governance, thus making life easier for itself.
Maintaining your employment involves making your employer believe that you are indispensable and one way to do that is to create a problem, or the impression of a potential problem and then come up with a solution which requires expanding the team/department.
Brexit was a classic example of the creation of potential problems. Unfortunately, the Civil Service had become too reliant on merely rubber stamping the rules and regulations emanating from Brussels and had lost the ability to come up with practical solutions to the problems it created. That, in my opinion, is why Brexit was so fiercely resisted by the Civil Service ‘mandarins’. Deep down, they knew that they had lost the ability to steer the bureaucratic ‘ship of state’, which is now becoming only too apparent.
Great analysis. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this frustration of the elected government by permanent officials, is for top civil servants to be routinely removed from office after an election, and replaced by appointees of the new government (as happens in the USA).
We do seem to be moving that way. Although you say, "It is hard now to imagine circumstances in which a government Minister would be able to simply sack a civil servant on the spot (without later being sued)", one of the first acts of Liz Truss's hapless administration was to sack the permanent secretary at the Treasury.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/tom-scholar-permanent-secretary-to-the-treasury-sacked-by-liz-truss
Of course there is also the phenomenon of government functions being moved out into pseudo-independent "agencies", which often fund themselves by charging fees to the people they regulate. This takes power even further away from our elected government.
Thank you for this magnificent analysis. It is most educational. And thanks also to all who comment. You are all so well informed. I learn such a lot from you as well as from David. I see I am still listed as a Free Subscriber. I have, in fact, signed up as paying subscriber. It will be worth every penny methinks!
Thanks very much for your support, Sean. Probably that's because I haven't set up the Substack to recieve payments yet and it's all free. I may charge in due course but for the time being you've just made a 'pledge' and so won't be charged anything.
I see,thanks. Substack ways are new to me.
Super thought provoking piece David. Bravo. Really informative. Interesting that Blair warned Cameron of the powers if the CS. Of all people I think he trampled on our rights and freedoms more than any modern PM and if he's warning of them, things must be bad. But all this is slowlt coming to light over CS behaviour over recent yrs. Brexit, Covid, immigration, Rwanda, Net Zero, home working etc etc etc. Our system of Governance is failing Democracy. The CS can't produce any competent service we (currently) require, from education, health, energy policy, planning etc etc the list is almost endless. Part of these failures is as a result of Govt over-reach that has been practised since pre-WWII (and defo Post- WWII). Their fingers are in every pie available and they are too remote from reality. This is destroying our country. Over-reach has led to massive expansions of the CS and the electorate don't seem to have woken up to it (yet). I never hear anyone from the CS or Govt arguing for a smaller state.
Finally these powers that seem to have been conferred on the CS haven't resulted in equal or similar employment rights that you would see in the private sector. They have very much resulted in gold plated contracts of employment that most of the private sector could only dream of.
Interesting that you suggested the Judicary was (partially?) politicised back in the 80s? Maybe I have rose tinted glasses. I thought things were better back then in just about everything Govt did.
I think the judiciary has not exactly been politicised but rather imbued with a kind of paternalism for a very long time.
It's a testament to your ability to write clearly that I understood as much as I did of that :-)
Surprisingly interesting -- who'd a thunk it?
Thanks!
Think of power as a kind of currency. Then, Diplock appears like a union boss - stuffing his wage and puffing his future negotiating stance. Judge and plaintiff combined. Should have recused himself.
'Public service' - wow! A nice idea that died somewhere between the Victorians and the end of WW2, I think. There is no possibility of reviving the idea of public service in a society that has been deliberately fractured along multi-cultural lines. For 'public service' to exist as a concept, you need a culturally cohesive population with a shared sense of identity and national pride.
A fascinating and convincing analysis of what is going wrong in the UK (and elsewhere).
How did the Diplock ruling affect the Supreme Court decision on Boris's prorogation of Parliament (if at all) ?
Thanks David.
The short answer is: don't get me started on that case... The slightly longer answer is that it was not discussed at great length in the Supreme Court's judgment but the two cases share a common philosophy, if I can put it that way, which is that if a minister uses a prerogative power in a way that is in some sense 'fishy', for want of a better term, it is for the courts to police the matter through judicial review (rather than there being a properly political response).
Yes, that's what I thought - and who decides what is "fishy" ?
The opposition/judiciary/etc, that 's who :(
PS Did you ever write an analysis of Baroness Hale's decision or is that more than your job's worth ?