wanderlust wrote:It just goes to show how little some folk know about government and the nature of government departments. I suspect some folk have watched too much Yes Minister.
For those who are interested, it works like this:
* New Government appoints Cabinet of ministers to enact their new policies
* Minister takes over government department and appoints managers and teams to enact policies. Usually this entails creating new workstreams/sub-departments and the injection of staff who support the policy.
* Existing managers and programmes are usually canned if they go against new government's policy
So for example when Michael Gove was appointed SS for Education:
"Gove terminated the previous Labour government's Building Schools for the Future programme; reformed A-Level and GCSE qualifications, abolishing modular units and coursework in most subjects, in favour of final examinations, and responded to the Trojan Horse scandal"
The Department of Education may not be staffed by politicians, but they did enact the wishes of the politicians - and those who dissented were sidelined. This is true of all Government departments and as amusing as Yes Minister was, it bears no resemblance to the reality of central gevernment departments where programmes, managers and staff come and go with every new policy shift.
As for the Anderson thing - I hope everyone has noticed that it wasn't me who raised the subject (yet again) - it was my shit stirring troll. So less of the "you two" please.
Dear God, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I've said before wikipedia is a good entry point for people looking to find out things but when you're talking about a professional service you really need to know where to look for facts rather than how you may think the service works, to this end I refer you to the Institute for Government.
In the following link the Institute states there are 426,500 civil servants employed in Government and if you really 'think' close on half a million people get hired and fired every five years after every election, then it just goes to show that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding about how things actually work in the CS.
Civil servants are permanent employees, in career grades who are politically impartial. It is they that remain as the various political parties come and go depending on the election results.
I don't need to base any knowledge on Yes Minister or anything else because I actually worked in public sector government for over 30 years!!!
How much experience have you got of the public sector and Civil Service in particular other than maybe some contract work from them?
Let me guess - absolutely NONE.
You've clearly haven't troubled to better inform yourself by reading the links I provided in my post above, one of which provides you with the transcript of the PAC questioning of all those overall responsible for the procurement of the PPE's and who have ultimate responsibility - indeed that was actually stated as such - ALL of those involved were CIVIL SERVANTS. No sign of ANY politicians or political cronyism anywhere!
Just as I've been saying all along.
I put all the facts in front of you but yet again you couldn't be bothered to concern yourself with them because you obviously believe you know better.
As for Anderson and trolling, I raised the name of Anderson as an example of where many people have judged him on the basis of the financial running of the club that they know nothing about. I used the example because it is one familiar to all of us.
How can that be trolling on my part, I was stating a fact?!!
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how Anderson could have better run an insolvent company to make more profit for himself as you claimed though - I see you've failed to do that, so I'll ask you again.
After all you're clearly much more cleverer than Bob and I who have spent our professional careers dealing with such things.
I won't hold my breath for your reply though, you never can back up what you say, can you?