Fox and werrity. Just good friends?

[Jason]

How long before another minister has to resign?

I don't know. But any government has only a limited number of people with the necessary skills, and there is a real problem with hounding people out of office if we end up with clueless people doing the job. Fox can point to a string of real achievements, and he knew his brief - I'm not sure if this can be said about his replacement. As a nation we're worse off with him gone. Now they are gunning for May. Who do we get in her place if she goes?

We need popular acceptance that ALL ministers will gum up some of the time, and when exposed to the media spotlight they will seem absolutely ridiculous for making these mistakes. This is the reality of the jobs they do. We're creating a situation where ministers spend ever more time covering their back and less and less time doing the job.

 

[dandelion]

People still seem to think well of Fox as a minister, but I didnt hear a proper explanation of exactly what he had been doing with regard to his adviser werrity. Last I heard Werrity was being paid for by very strange means, including money which the donors denied had been for that purpose. He was plainly acting as an advisor, but Fox adamantly denied this. So, trapped in this lie, he had no choice but to resign.

May has stated bluntly the cockup was nothing to do with her. The chap who apparently she has blamed and sacked is now claiming unfair dismissal against her, and says he did nothing of the sort which she has claimed. She says he exceeded his authority by expanding a scheme she had approved. He says he merely administered an existing approved policy. One of them is wrong. If she just lied to try to defend her position, then she is toast, just like Fox. Either way, she seems to have firstly been incompetent in presiding over an unacceptable policy, and then either lied or was incompetent again in defending her actions.

Lying is generally bad policy. Should we accept the principle ministers are entitled to lie to defend their mistakes?

 

[Jason]

Fox should have employed Werrity as advisor and everyone would have been happy.

May's position is ... interesting. I suspect we will find some confusion in just what the civil servant was authorised to do. I doubt she has deliberately lied, but I suspect she may have misunderstood just how much freedom her civil servants have to interpret her views.

 

[dandelion]

I agree about Fox. May seems to have fallen into a more traditional trap. She is undeniably guilty of being unaware of what her department was doing. There seems to be some risk of her denouncing her civil servants for having done the sensible thing in the circumstances.

 

[Jason]

We need a new realisation from the public that MPs and ministers do gum up because, shock horror, they are human beings.

Fox gummed up. No one can put in a few words what he is supposed to have done wrong. He didn't get rich from it. indeed it seems that because of AW's support he was able to do mo work and do it better. A past age would have rewarded AW with an honour or a peerage or something.

MPs who don't dispose of their paperwork properly have also gummed up. But non-secret paperwork put in the bin and retrieved by mischievous individuals should not be a hanging offence for the MP. Maybe for the thief who steals from the rubbish, which is an offence.

May has not understood something that has gone on in her office. But then no ministers ever understand how their office works. The civil servant who acted as he did must have understood that this was not her policy. Do we have a politicised civil service where a lot of civil servants went native under the last government?

 

[dandelion]

What Fox did wrong was blatantly break the rules on ministerial conduct and then lie about it. Maybe the rules are wrong, but Cameron sanctioned and supported them, and still does, and then Fox broke them. Hypocrisy perhaps, but that is the system the government has chosen.

I seriously do not think that stealing rubbish should be an offence! Like state gone mad?

There is a longstanding tradition that ministers are wholly responsible for what goes on in their office. I presume the idea is to encourage them to do a good job. In modern times there is an increasing trend for ministers to deny responsibility for anything which happens in their office, and indeed introduce laws formally separating great chunks of the state from direct government control. If ministers are going to take this position, then perhaps we should be reverting to the other traditional position that ministers do not get paid. If they are not in control, what would we be paying them for?

 

[Jason]

We need a degree of balance in the popular and media response to shortcomings by MPs and ministers.

The expenses scandal illustrated the different sorts of shortcomings:

1) straightforward lies for financial gain - and some have gone to gaol.

2) perfectly legal, eg claim for having your moat cleaned out.

3) Trivial mistakes, eg MP who submitted a receipt which included a tin of cat food on it.

The outcry over type (2) and (3) showed an immature media and population. And we're seeing similar over Fox and now May. For the former the media would have loved to find that they were lovers, then reported the story saying that of course we're all broad minded and it doesn't make any difference. A code is a guideline, not a set of rules. Yes Fox broke the code - probably it needs changing. Yes agreed he tied himself in knots subsequently, and this is wrong, yet there must always be a temptation to feel that there must be a way out of a mess. Now we have May's office getting something wrong, and the media has the cheek to suggest she knows about everything that happens in her office. We need to change this myth. Ministers have precious little idea what is happening in their office, and need sympathetic civil servants to help them. Basically they need an Andrew Werrity.

We need the code rewritten to make mentoring and support from someone like AW not only possible but expected. May needed a friend who might have picked up on the civil service hodge.

 

[dandelion]

I got the clear impression that breeches of the instructions for ministers is a sacking offence, whatever you care to call them. That is the governments official position.

I happen to find the business over vince cable being obliged to step aside when judging Murdoch because he made clear his existing views on Murdoch was also ridiculous. A ministers job is to decide, and it is their pre existing knowledge and experience which fits them for the job. That is a fundamental principle of leadership. Again, the May issue comes back to the question of whether it is the minister's job to decide, and then afterwards be responsible for what was done. Cable should have been allowed to carry out his job and be judged on results. May has done something and should be responsible for whatever it is. Right now it isnt clear what it is, but there is a clear disagreement between her and her staff on what she has actually done, or perhaps failed to do.

Whether May needed more help....seems she did. I think this is more about what she has failed to do rather than has done. However, there may be deeper issues here to do with inadequate staffing levels for the immigration service to be able to do what it is supposed to. If she has cut numbers so this mess was inevitable, then it comes back to her once again.

 

[dandelion]

heres a curious thing. There seems to be a row brewing over tanker planes for the british armed forces. newsnight sems to have spoken to experts who suggest a reasonable cost per plane is £50 million (including £10 million conversion costs on the basic civilian plane). Whereas apparently the MOD claimed a few months ago such a plane would cost £150 million as part of a private finance initiative deal. The whole deal seems to lease planes for £750 million each over a period up to 2035. The contract possibly started 2008, but no planes are operating yet.

BBC News - RAF accused over multi-billion Voyager contract

Now, what brings us back to Dr Fox, is that when he was still minister and former head of the army Lord Dannatt (now retired, so talking) asked Fox whether there was some problem with the contract, because it was so expensive, Fox still OKed it.At the time the ministry was hunting ways to cut costs. Fox's replacement Philip Hammond, in their defence claimed the contract had been initially signed by the the previous labour government.


This comes on top of todays announcement that the previous decision (presumably by Fox) to change the last government's choice of planes for Britians maybe/maybe-not cancelled aircraft carriers, has been reversed.