It would indeed be very stupid for Labour to encourage a Reform victory in Clacton. You can see from Caroline Lucas that a single high-profile MP in the Commons can have an outsized influence and this is a role Farage would relish. I can just imagine him calling himself "the real leader of the Opposition" or somesuch.
Labour are already in talks with investors to put more public money into our services. So in effect the system that has brought us to where we are now is the solution Labour has to offer. When will they learn private business doesn’t doesn’t invest out of charity. It invests to make a profit. Money that will go to investors and not the NHS or Transport infrastructure.
In fact it is legally obliged to invest to make a profit, if I understand correctly.
The majority of the civil service appears to veer to the left
Funny how that happens when you start working with detailed data
Chicken and egg though - while I don’t doubt your conclusions, if you self select for people prepared to put up with endless pay restraint and a working environment of uninvested crumbling public buildings then maybe the effects of working with detailed data are less than the sort of person you get walking through the door in the first place who feels strongly enough about the work to want to do it.
Also, there’s public service and public service - the forces tend (soft) right on the whole (within which I’d include the Old Labour Right) and put up with exactly the same but because they think it’s worth doing. You don’t get Cavalry officers on the whole thinking ‘it’s the Blues and Royals or the DWP Fast Stream for me’
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
If Labour treat them as human beings and allow them to do their work properly them yes the Civil Service will treat them better. Not being bullied tends to do that
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
My son is a ministerial policy advisor. When he started he told his minister that he would never vote for him, but that he will give him the best advice possible. He has done this through the past few years when he seems to have changed ministers more often than his socks.
The kaleidoscopic changes in *ministers* in recent years would try the patience of Job. Very few of these people can have ever got to grips with their portfolio before yet another reshuffle occurred.
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
If Labour treat them as human beings and allow them to do their work properly them yes the Civil Service will treat them better. Not being bullied tends to do that
2016. I was wondering who would be first to notice that.
I was just worrying about what my great grandfather had voted for that I was only now realising was an issue but didn't want to admit to!*
*to be honest that's probably a reasonably long list, but thankfully in 1916 social media wasn't a thing, and I don't think the Ypres salient had decent enough wi-fi for there to be a record of his posting history from which we may be able to infer voting intention!
This seems to me to be a sensible use of their presence in Westminster, though obviously it remains to be seen how effective it will be - no doubt the LibDems (also happy bunnies) will be doing something similar.
Maybe Starmer will now *be braver*, as he at last has the keys to Number Ten.
Basically I’d be careful about thinking the Civil Service turns people left. On the whole IME it tends to recruit left or centre, because left or centre want to do it.
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
If Labour treat them as human beings and allow them to do their work properly them yes the Civil Service will treat them better. Not being bullied tends to do that
Thinking about this further; it would be very strange if the Civil Service was uniformly to the left of the Conservative Party, simply because for most of its history the country has been governed by the Conservatives and they've had ample opportunity to shape it (certainly at the senior levels, permanent secretaries etc).
I suspect what's actually happened is that as the Old Liberal tendency in the Tory Party has declined there's been the rise of a much more Thatcherite strain that is fundamentally hostile to the British State - which is what you see in people like JRM, Truss, etc.
And that's 'fine' as far as it goes for an insurgent movement like Reform, but breaks as soon as you have to govern and actually run the country.
The Civil Service tends somewhat to the left (not the far left) because the sort of people who have right-wing views and have the necessary ability for senior jobs tend to want the kind of wages the Civil Service cannot afford. So they go into the private sector.
I have never been in the CS but I spent many years in local government and had political masters who were Tories, Labour and Lib Dem. I like to think I served them all loyally despite my personal views. I found the LDs the most agreeable to work for, although - way back now - I knew some very decent Tory councillors. The only situation where I would have refused an instruction was if I thought it illegal - fortunately this never arose, though I had a colleague for whom this did arise, under a Labour Council. He duly refused to obey.
In my experience, town hall staff tend to be a good mixture. If you think they are all Labour you are very wrong, although social services tend to lean far left. The great bulk is what you might call representative of the public. I had one Assistant Director as a boss, a very sound and efficient chap, who no sooner retired than he became a Tory councillor in another authority. We also had a tea lady who hated Labour. I knew plenty of Tories on the staff in my time, often working in quite humble roles.
I have never been in the CS but I spent many years in local government and had political masters
Sure, but this is comparing apples with oranges, as you are talking about a different area of public sector work.
Furthermore; I think you have to differentiate between the lower ranks who are likely to be largely implementing existing policies and senior grades that have significant policy/advisory roles. Once you get to very senior grades, the make up is so skewed that one has to doubt that they are significantly 'left wing' in comparison with the general population: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/more-perm-secs-privately-educated-than-five-years-ago-report-finds
I have never been in the CS but I spent many years in local government and had political masters
Sure, but this is comparing apples with oranges, as you are talking about a different area of public sector work.
Furthermore; I think you have to differentiate between the lower ranks who are likely to be largely implementing existing policies and senior grades that have significant policy/advisory roles. Once you get to very senior grades, the make up is so skewed that one has to doubt that they are significantly 'left wing' in comparison with the general population: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/more-perm-secs-privately-educated-than-five-years-ago-report-finds
The disproportionate Oxbridge recruitment, historically would not suggest a left wing bias.
Oxbridge intake does not necessarily exclude the left wing, historically.
It doesn't. But on average, it breaks more right than left. It makes sense when you factor in what proportion of Oxbridge students went to private schools.
Which is why I am very sceptical of complaints about the civil service from right wingers.
If they have a bias, I suspect it is towards institutionalism and pragmatism. Which would explain why certain government ministers might have found the civil service to be less enthusiastic than they hoped, when they wanted to push through impractical policies that damaged institutions.
AFZ
P.s. these days less than a third of students at both Oxford and Cambridge were privately schooled. However, in the 1960s, it was over two thirds.
P.s. these days less than a third of students at both Oxford and Cambridge were privately schooled. However, in the 1960s, it was over two thirds.
Largely agreed with everything you said, but just wanted to pick this out of the article above:
"Educational charity the Sutton Trust said 59% of the current perm secs in government departments went to private school, an increase of 4% since 2014. Meanwhile, 56% went to either the University of Oxford or Cambridge, the report published today said."
Obviously one can't simply compose the figures together, but of note is that even by the standards of the average Oxbridge intake permanent secretaries were more likely to have been privately educated.
I think that it would be a big mistake to equate private schooling with turning out nasty little capitalists. UK public schooling has long had an ethos of public or national service, a sense of recognising their privilege and expecting students to serve. Not really at the front line, social workers and nursing often being seen as something below their station, but in senior administration roles certainly. In the first half of the 20th century, it was UK public schools who produced the administrators for the colonies as well as the civil service, and of course in 1914-18 those "Your Country Needs You" posters were aimed at the working class, they weren't needed for public school boys who had been first in the queues to sign up.
Much of the senior civil service still has that public service ethos, along with other traits such as a professionalism and pride in doing the job properly. For those with a "small state" political philosophy and/or belief that private enterprise motivated by making money is most efficient that would look quite left wing. But, those same senior civil servants are products of the Establishment, including public schooling, and a generally quite conservative in the sense of following conventions and doing things in the tried and tested ways - which would create problems for anyone wanting to rip up the rule book and do things differently, whether from the left or right of the political spectrum (so, for example, we have the Truss diatribes against a civil service inertia to accept, let alone implement, her radical economic views).
Although, as you note later on, actually quite literally in the actual front line, rather than the 'front line' that other careers that aren't the armed forces have subsequently decided to have.
I think that it would be a big mistake to equate private schooling with turning out nasty little capitalists. UK public schooling has long had an ethos of public or national service, a sense of recognising their privilege and expecting students to serve. Not really at the front line, social workers and nursing often being seen as something below their station, but in senior administration roles certainly. In the first half of the 20th century, it was UK public schools who produced the administrators for the colonies as well as the civil service, and of course in 1914-18 those "Your Country Needs You" posters were aimed at the working class, they weren't needed for public school boys who had been first in the queues to sign up.
Much of the senior civil service still has that public service ethos, along with other traits such as a professionalism and pride in doing the job properly.
I just wanted to stop you here because objectively, these are not left wing people, which is the point. And I believe that right wing and 'nasty little capitalist' are not the same thing, although I would suggest some overlap. Your mileage (and/or Venn diagram) may vary.
P.s. these days less than a third of students at both Oxford and Cambridge were privately schooled. However, in the 1960s, it was over two thirds.
Largely agreed with everything you said, but just wanted to pick this out of the article above:
"Educational charity the Sutton Trust said 59% of the current perm secs in government departments went to private school, an increase of 4% since 2014. Meanwhile, 56% went to either the University of Oxford or Cambridge, the report published today said."
Obviously one can't simply compose the figures together, but of note is that even by the standards of the average Oxbridge intake permanent secretaries were more likely to have been privately educated.
Fair enough. But I think we're confirming the deeper point that there is little/no evidence of the Civil Service being left wing.
Conversely, the previous point about the relative earning potential in certain finance jobs vs the CS is also true.
I postulated before that the recent Right Wing ministers would have been met by a bent towards pragmatism and institutionalism that they may have misattributed to a left wing political perspective. It is probably also true that if you're far enough to the right, anyone doing public service looks a bit Commie...
I postulated before that the recent Right Wing ministers would have been met by a bent towards pragmatism and institutionalism that they may have misattributed to a left wing political perspective. It is probably also true that if you're far enough to the right, anyone doing public service looks a bit Commie...
Yes, and this goes back to what I said here about the cleavage in the Tory Party. Very crudely; someone like Rory Stewart would be able to find common ground with a senior Civil Servant talking of duty and public service, Liz Truss and JRM rather less so.
Telford was implying that the backlog could be cleared instantly by just accepting everyone. I might argue about the political angle there but it was a very good line.
Telford was implying that the backlog could be cleared instantly by just accepting everyone. I might argue about the political angle there but it was a very good line.
Thanks!
I don't recall the ad, but I watched very little TV in that period - too busy reading Books, I expect.
Comments
In fact it is legally obliged to invest to make a profit, if I understand correctly.
Funny how that happens when you start working with detailed data
If the civil service actually veered to the left they'd have little time for the current Labour Party.
Chicken and egg though - while I don’t doubt your conclusions, if you self select for people prepared to put up with endless pay restraint and a working environment of uninvested crumbling public buildings then maybe the effects of working with detailed data are less than the sort of person you get walking through the door in the first place who feels strongly enough about the work to want to do it.
Also, there’s public service and public service - the forces tend (soft) right on the whole (within which I’d include the Old Labour Right) and put up with exactly the same but because they think it’s worth doing. You don’t get Cavalry officers on the whole thinking ‘it’s the Blues and Royals or the DWP Fast Stream for me’
I can't prove it but I just know that Labour will get more co-operation
No. The state we are in is all on them.
If Labour treat them as human beings and allow them to do their work properly them yes the Civil Service will treat them better. Not being bullied tends to do that
My son is a ministerial policy advisor. When he started he told his minister that he would never vote for him, but that he will give him the best advice possible. He has done this through the past few years when he seems to have changed ministers more often than his socks.
Very true.
I was just worrying about what my great grandfather had voted for that I was only now realising was an issue but didn't want to admit to!*
*to be honest that's probably a reasonably long list, but thankfully in 1916 social media wasn't a thing, and I don't think the Ypres salient had decent enough wi-fi for there to be a record of his posting history from which we may be able to infer voting intention!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/05/green-party-carla-denyer-labour-climate-crisis-cost-of-living
This seems to me to be a sensible use of their presence in Westminster, though obviously it remains to be seen how effective it will be - no doubt the LibDems (also happy bunnies) will be doing something similar.
Maybe Starmer will now *be braver*, as he at last has the keys to Number Ten.
Bad Jokes thread is up there /|\
Thinking about this further; it would be very strange if the Civil Service was uniformly to the left of the Conservative Party, simply because for most of its history the country has been governed by the Conservatives and they've had ample opportunity to shape it (certainly at the senior levels, permanent secretaries etc).
I suspect what's actually happened is that as the Old Liberal tendency in the Tory Party has declined there's been the rise of a much more Thatcherite strain that is fundamentally hostile to the British State - which is what you see in people like JRM, Truss, etc.
And that's 'fine' as far as it goes for an insurgent movement like Reform, but breaks as soon as you have to govern and actually run the country.
I have never been in the CS but I spent many years in local government and had political masters who were Tories, Labour and Lib Dem. I like to think I served them all loyally despite my personal views. I found the LDs the most agreeable to work for, although - way back now - I knew some very decent Tory councillors. The only situation where I would have refused an instruction was if I thought it illegal - fortunately this never arose, though I had a colleague for whom this did arise, under a Labour Council. He duly refused to obey.
In my experience, town hall staff tend to be a good mixture. If you think they are all Labour you are very wrong, although social services tend to lean far left. The great bulk is what you might call representative of the public. I had one Assistant Director as a boss, a very sound and efficient chap, who no sooner retired than he became a Tory councillor in another authority. We also had a tea lady who hated Labour. I knew plenty of Tories on the staff in my time, often working in quite humble roles.
Sure, but this is comparing apples with oranges, as you are talking about a different area of public sector work.
Furthermore; I think you have to differentiate between the lower ranks who are likely to be largely implementing existing policies and senior grades that have significant policy/advisory roles. Once you get to very senior grades, the make up is so skewed that one has to doubt that they are significantly 'left wing' in comparison with the general population: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/more-perm-secs-privately-educated-than-five-years-ago-report-finds
The disproportionate Oxbridge recruitment, historically would not suggest a left wing bias.
Ah! Happy days! I worked for the GLC for many years, and was one of Red Ken's Lads...
It doesn't. But on average, it breaks more right than left. It makes sense when you factor in what proportion of Oxbridge students went to private schools.
Which is why I am very sceptical of complaints about the civil service from right wingers.
If they have a bias, I suspect it is towards institutionalism and pragmatism. Which would explain why certain government ministers might have found the civil service to be less enthusiastic than they hoped, when they wanted to push through impractical policies that damaged institutions.
AFZ
P.s. these days less than a third of students at both Oxford and Cambridge were privately schooled. However, in the 1960s, it was over two thirds.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/08/human-rights-groups-give-starmer-blueprint-for-asylum-overhaul
O! won't it piss off the swivel-eyed loons of Deform Ltd...why, there might not be any small boats to shoot at...
Largely agreed with everything you said, but just wanted to pick this out of the article above:
"Educational charity the Sutton Trust said 59% of the current perm secs in government departments went to private school, an increase of 4% since 2014. Meanwhile, 56% went to either the University of Oxford or Cambridge, the report published today said."
Obviously one can't simply compose the figures together, but of note is that even by the standards of the average Oxbridge intake permanent secretaries were more likely to have been privately educated.
Much of the senior civil service still has that public service ethos, along with other traits such as a professionalism and pride in doing the job properly. For those with a "small state" political philosophy and/or belief that private enterprise motivated by making money is most efficient that would look quite left wing. But, those same senior civil servants are products of the Establishment, including public schooling, and a generally quite conservative in the sense of following conventions and doing things in the tried and tested ways - which would create problems for anyone wanting to rip up the rule book and do things differently, whether from the left or right of the political spectrum (so, for example, we have the Truss diatribes against a civil service inertia to accept, let alone implement, her radical economic views).
Although, as you note later on, actually quite literally in the actual front line, rather than the 'front line' that other careers that aren't the armed forces have subsequently decided to have.
I just wanted to stop you here because objectively, these are not left wing people, which is the point. And I believe that right wing and 'nasty little capitalist' are not the same thing, although I would suggest some overlap. Your mileage (and/or Venn diagram) may vary.
Fair enough. But I think we're confirming the deeper point that there is little/no evidence of the Civil Service being left wing.
Conversely, the previous point about the relative earning potential in certain finance jobs vs the CS is also true.
I postulated before that the recent Right Wing ministers would have been met by a bent towards pragmatism and institutionalism that they may have misattributed to a left wing political perspective. It is probably also true that if you're far enough to the right, anyone doing public service looks a bit Commie...
AFZ
Yes, and this goes back to what I said here about the cleavage in the Tory Party. Very crudely; someone like Rory Stewart would be able to find common ground with a senior Civil Servant talking of duty and public service, Liz Truss and JRM rather less so.
The easiest way to clear the backlog would be to give the job to the man from Del Monte
Hee hee.
Nicely done.
However, them's the rules.
I bet you didn't complain then.
44% of the vote. We can argue about whether that’s way less than 50% or not but it’s better than 34%.
Aside from that her ‘bigger majority’ was, er, (checks notes) 44.
So no.
Under universal suffrage at least.
So you have to go back 50/60 years to find a handful of notable people, not all of whom were motivated by ideology anyway.
Sorry - I'm probably missing something, but I have no idea what @Telford is on about...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_from_Del_Monte
Telford was implying that the backlog could be cleared instantly by just accepting everyone. I might argue about the political angle there but it was a very good line.
Thanks!
I don't recall the ad, but I watched very little TV in that period - too busy reading Books, I expect.