This is a conversation I had on Twitter on 3rd January 2017. I’ve referenced it a few times since, because it was so interesting and important.
The other party “SL” currently describes herself as “Retired lawyer… Enlightenment values and the rule of law. Pro-Europe.” I’ve scratched her handle here because I’m sure she wouldn’t want to be dragged back into all this after 8 years, and it’s not about her, rather I assume she represents the “Enlightenment values and the rule of law” people well. The discussion even at the time was notable for being reasonably polite and rational.
The initial trigger was a tweet by slightly nutty Labour MP Kate (now Baroness) Hoey. I don’t care about her.
I’ve pasted the tweets below. Note that this all took place over a couple of hours, and we replied past each other quite often, so it isn’t in X today as a single thread, rather there are a lot of branches. Therefore some lines below are replies to things further up the page, not to the immediately preceding.
@SL Civil servants are independent. In trying to politicise them you are a disgrace to Parliamentary democracy.
@someone-else She’s not on that again, is she? She didn’t even know MEPs were elected. Twerp.
@SL And she doesn’t know that civil servants are politically neutral.
@someoneelse This Post is from a suspended account
@SL False. The independence of civil servants is a vital underpinning of our democracy.
@anomalyuk who told you that?
@SL Who’s asking?
@anomalyuk someone who has read the Fulton Report
‘the Civil Service works under the obligation of political accountability’
@SL Who told you that?
@anomalyuk That’s the official report into how the Civil Service is supposed to work
@SL There have been many such reports, not one. “[T]he official report”? Comical.
@anomalyuk [link to the text of the Fulton report. The link no longer works, and I cannot now find a text, though there are pdf scans: https://www.civilservant.org.uk/csr-fulton_report-findings.html]
@SL No, it doesn’t say what you claim.
@anomalyuk Chapter 1, Paragraph 13. 1
@SL which was in 1968. Read the current sources of law and practice.
@anomalyuk an employee COP isn’t talking about ‘underpinnings of democracy’
The goal of impartiality since Northcote-Trevelyan2 has been for efficiency
per-term political appointees are likely to be less able than permanents
This is a (good) argument of sacrificing some democracy for efficiency
@SL I don’t know what you’re on about. The impartiality of civil servants is provided
for by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. See ss 5-9.
@anomalyuk I’m still genuinely curious where your bizarre theory came from, BTW.
@SL Here are some actual sources.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-service-conduct-and-guidance
http://civilservicecommission.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Code-of-Practice-for-Staff.pdf
A handy extract
@anomalyuk So (1) you retract your claim Fulton doesn’t say what it in fact says?
and (2) an ‘underpinning of democracy’ is new since 1968?
@SL No idea what you’re on about now, sorry. If you’ve a point, feel free to make it.
@anomalyuk I was not arguing that aiming for impartiality is without merit: I was disputing the ‘underpinning of democracy’ claim.
@SL “Aiming for” impartiality? It’s a statutory requirement. Under the rule of law.
@anomalyuk The (very hard) job of running a civil service is balancing professionalism with political accountability.
@SL A separation of powers underpins democracy.
And this discussion is about being an impartial civil servant. Subject to rigorous statutory obligations.It’s up to minsters
to set political goals. Civil servants implement them.
@anomalyuk there are a few threads now to this discussion. This [“A separation of powers underpins democracy”] is the one I care about (your legal claims are no doubt correct).
The ‘separation of powers’ historically never meant between politicians and civil servants.
Executive, Legislature and Judiciary were the traditional three branches. Crown/Prime Minister & Civil Service not separate
@anomalyuk The idea of a Civil Service with independent power gradually arose in the late 20th Century.
@SL Because our executive and legislature are one. It’s to give effect to a modified separation of powers.
@anomalyuk It arose around the same time in the USA, where legislature and executive are separate.
I tend to assume it’s part of the general managerial revolution, along with the ‘post-war consensus’ in politics.
but I’m interested in alternative theories. The idea that it is more democratic to do things this way is new to me.
@SL Independent power? I was talking about impartiality.
@anomalyuk How is ‘separation of powers’ not about power?
@SL Impartiality is a duty, not a power.
@anomalyuk How does the separation of powers, which you brought up, not me, come into it then?
I get impartiality. If a CS is too tied to a party, then when that party leaves, he leaves, replacement lacks experience…
..and possibly ability, government becomes amateurish and incompetent. As was the case before 1850s
My impression from you is that an impartial civil service should be a ‘check’ on executive power. That’s what I don’t get.
@SL Impartiality obliges a civil servant to tell the minister what is true, not what they want to be told. That’s very important.
@anomalyuk I would still class that as an ‘efficiency’ rather than a ‘democracy’ consideration. But I think we’ve got to the end.
Thanks very much for persevering, it’s been educational.