Ukip. Hahaha

Whilst I don't disagree that Westminster needs levelling (and replacing with retirement flats, perhaps), the fact that ministers are not subject matter experts is not the main reason why this would be a great idea.

 

Some countries have governments consisting entirely of experts - Army Generals who are experts at soldiering. This approach rarely ends well.
Only a few years ago, Italy tried appointing a government of expert economists, lawyers, etc. in place of politicians, but that didn't go too well either - people kept complaining they were "unelected".

 

The way Scotland's going its turning into a one party state. How does that square with governing expertise and electoral accountability?
Things will get really interesting when the SNP gets some competition from another pro-independence party, particularly if it is not left wing. It will happen at some point.

 

I thought Ministers were there to provide political leadership and define overall strategic thinking within their Ministries but it was the civil service that provided the real expertise and refined policy ?

In practice however it seems like the Ministers behave like enthusiastic amateurs driven by short term political expediency.

 

Indeed. Ministers take responsibility, take decisions, define strategy, provide legitimacy, and answer to parliament and thus to the electorate. The Civil Service provides policy advice and expertise (including professional expertise). The thing is, ministers do not have to accept the advice they are given. When ministers have rejected best advice and insisted on doing the opposite, this usually becomes obvious quite soon.

 

Obviously better or obviously worse?

 

I suppose one of the interesting things is that the civil service team stays essentially the same while their boss comes and goes. When the government changes then their advice will suddenly be accepted when previously it was rejected or vice versa.

Their advice will be scrutinised for how well it fits with the party's political agenda.

I wonder what the real advice has been for Cameron's jihadi return policy. I can't help feeling he ignored it. The policy leaves a lot of unanswered questions and makes implications which while probably true, no one has had the courage to voice. That is essentially "These people are not British and have no loyalty to Britain so should not be allowed back. Good riddance to the bearded fools. Who cares if they were born in the UK? They've chosen their Muslim bed and now they can lie in it."

I can't see the the civil service really recommending that, however much they may sympathise with the viewpoint.

 

It is pretty obvious that Cameron must have decided to announce his jihadi return policy against legal advice and policy advice. It must have been his political judgement to ignore all the practical, legal, diplomatic and principled difficulties and announce it anyway.

Of course every new policy has its difficulties and obstacles - if they were allowed to prevail, no minister would ever take an initiative. The essence of political judgement is to decide whether the difficulties can be overcome or not, and whether they are worth overcoming. In this instance I think Cameron got it badly wrong.

 

I take your point Pete but is this not just a simple case of playing to the crowd in the run up to an election year.

It is a bit like the £1.7 billion that suddenly became £0.8 billion and a great victory announced.

It is being stage managed for a public that doesn't go beyond the headlines.

 

posturing seems to be Cameroons only tactic,, fitting that his latest display should be in Australia where the recent posturing of their own PM is another fkn joke .

 

Sometimes the political calculation may be that there is more popularity to be gained with the more dim-witted voters by announcing an unrealistic policy now than will be lost by abandoning it later on. So it is possible Cameron may have got this one right - in that rather limited sense.

 

Whilst I disagree with Cameron's policies on May subjects I do think he does look like a statesman when he is abroad. But there is more I being a politician than this. Ministers need to have an understandingly their portfolio and the machinations of the departments effects: health,
Defence and education in particular. Otherwise policies become disaster areas.
Witness the farce if universal benefit that Tories were warned was impossible to implement. 4 years on, billions spent and zero to show for it.

As for Scotland being a one party state it is obvious why that has happened. People
No longer trust labour. Tories are toxic and the lib dems are lost. Who is is going To ensure DEVO MAX is delivered?

But more than that the SNP ministers are regarded as competent administrators. Most policies are formulated on research not political dogma and as such are a success.

 

It's mainly the economy. The main areas of which ministers really need to have a good grasp are those concerning the economy. This doesn't mean they need to be professional economists, just that they need to know enough to be able to understand what the economists are saying. For other portfolios, any incoming minister is given a fat file of stuff they must digest and thoroughly understand quickly. Any minister who is too lazy or too stupid to do so soon has to be sacked. Bear in mind that ministers have no job security - they can be sacked at a moments notice for any reason (or no reason).

 

These things go round and round, and all parties have their ups and downs. Soon enough, the SNP will have their turn at being perceived as toxic, incompetent, unpopular, etc. Just you wait.

It is illuminating to see what policies the SNP has favoured over the past 20 years. A wide variety of ideas have been tried, many of them contradictory. Left and right wing policies have alternated, as have the justifications for them. Each manifesto has reversed the previous one. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but SNP policies are formulated on trial and error not on principles.