english zloty Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 2 hours ago, piebaps said: Read the ad. Its a 2 year appointment in the Cabinet Office. Because that’s as long as the incumbent will be able to last before burnout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 I hope they get someone with a proven track record instead of someone whose qualifications just happen to fit the position! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatnonsence Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 5 hours ago, Max Power said: I hope they get someone with a proven track record instead of someone whose qualifications just happen to fit the position! I doubt anybody within the National Health Management have any track record of success. Two years to get an act together! Play the game then leave with 300grand in the back pocket after two years as our home team have no track record on overseeing projects or protecting public money from so called experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 two hospitals. one social care system how hard can it be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 On 6/15/2019 at 4:10 PM, Donald Trumps said: All power/authority is being gathered in the Cabinet Office? And that's worrying as it's built around one man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 34 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: And that's worrying as it's built around one man. Indeed - and that person is nominally the Chief Minister, but effectively the Chief Secretary. A civil servant responsible to no one, especially with such a weak CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Indeed - and that person is nominally the Chief Minister, but effectively the Chief Secretary. A civil servant responsible to no one, especially with such a weak CM. Actually, it was CT that I had in mind as he seems to be the main mover/architect of much of what has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Actually, it was CT that I had in mind as he seems to be the main mover/architect of much of what has happened. But as Roger says, in practice there’ll be an awful lot of day to day clout (increasing in nature and scope) vested in the head of the civil service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatnonsence Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Indeed - and that person is nominally the Chief Minister, but effectively the Chief Secretary. A civil servant responsible to no one, especially with such a weak CM. If Beecroft is to believed when she was trying to rid her department of Couch she blamed both of them for her demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Uhtred said: But as Roger says, in practice there’ll be an awful lot of day to day clout (increasing in nature and scope) vested in the head of the civil service. CT is de facto CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 9 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Actually, it was CT that I had in mind as he seems to be the main mover/architect of much of what has happened. It's a very common misconception that Thomas is the Minister for the Cabinet Office. He isn't - that's Quayle[1]. Thomas is only Minster for Policy and Reform. That means he's got lots of responsibilities for coordinating stuff, but no actual power to do so and few civil servants actually working for him that he can direct. He's basically Minister for Reports Nobody Reads. The real power lies with the Chief Secretary. Even if Thomas or Allinson (the Cabinet Office Departmental Member) tried to impose something that didn't suit some civil servants, the latter can just go to Quayle and get it stopped. Though that also happens with Quayle in other Departments as well as we saw with Beecroft. The idea of the Cabinet Office was to create a Department that made sure things were coordinated, but it was really intended so that the Chief Minister could interfere wherever he wanted, over the heads of the professionals in each Department. Even with a strong CM who knew what he wanted, it would have been a bad idea. But with weak one such as Quayle or Bell, it just means you end up with yet another 'silo' rather than the divisions being broken down, plus occasional arbitrary interference. [1] Initially it had been intended that this be a separate person, but Bell's control-freakery wouldn't allow it - and certainly not if it involved giving power to Robertshaw, the P&R Minister. This has ended up being the norm, because it means there is a large government department without any potential political control, which the civil service likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 21 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: And that's worrying as it's built around one man. No Dr Allinson is also in the Cabinet Office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: It's a very common misconception that Thomas is the Minister for the Cabinet Office. He isn't - that's Quayle[1]. Thomas is only Minster for Policy and Reform. That means he's got lots of responsibilities for coordinating stuff, but no actual power to do so and few civil servants actually working for him that he can direct. He's basically Minister for Reports Nobody Reads. The real power lies with the Chief Secretary. Even if Thomas or Allinson (the Cabinet Office Departmental Member) tried to impose something that didn't suit some civil servants, the latter can just go to Quayle and get it stopped. Though that also happens with Quayle in other Departments as well as we saw with Beecroft. The idea of the Cabinet Office was to create a Department that made sure things were coordinated, but it was really intended so that the Chief Minister could interfere wherever he wanted, over the heads of the professionals in each Department. Even with a strong CM who knew what he wanted, it would have been a bad idea. But with weak one such as Quayle or Bell, it just means you end up with yet another 'silo' rather than the divisions being broken down, plus occasional arbitrary interference. [1] Initially it had been intended that this be a separate person, but Bell's control-freakery wouldn't allow it - and certainly not if it involved giving power to Robertshaw, the P&R Minister. This has ended up being the norm, because it means there is a large government department without any potential political control, which the civil service likes. That seems like a very well informed and highly persuasive analysis Rog. You’re not the Chief Secretary are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: It's a very common misconception that Thomas is the Minister for the Cabinet Office. He isn't - that's Quayle[1]. Thomas is only Minster for Policy and Reform. That means he's got lots of responsibilities for coordinating stuff, but no actual power to do so and few civil servants actually working for him that he can direct. He's basically Minister for Reports Nobody Reads. The real power lies with the Chief Secretary. Even if Thomas or Allinson (the Cabinet Office Departmental Member) tried to impose something that didn't suit some civil servants, the latter can just go to Quayle and get it stopped. Though that also happens with Quayle in other Departments as well as we saw with Beecroft. The idea of the Cabinet Office was to create a Department that made sure things were coordinated, but it was really intended so that the Chief Minister could interfere wherever he wanted, over the heads of the professionals in each Department. Even with a strong CM who knew what he wanted, it would have been a bad idea. But with weak one such as Quayle or Bell, it just means you end up with yet another 'silo' rather than the divisions being broken down, plus occasional arbitrary interference. [1] Initially it had been intended that this be a separate person, but Bell's control-freakery wouldn't allow it - and certainly not if it involved giving power to Robertshaw, the P&R Minister. This has ended up being the norm, because it means there is a large government department without any potential political control, which the civil service likes. Much is made of Sir Alan Duncan acting as the Foreign Office 'pooper-scooper' when Johnson was Secretary of State there Does CT have a similar role in the Cabinet Office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 https://www.judgments.im/content/J2569.htm This employment tribunal is a helpful read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.