KK - I know you love thinking things through, so I’m probably just going to highlight something you’ve thought about; but I’m curious as to why you’ve never really mentioned it - and I say this as a traditionalist, who over the last 5 years have worked with the civil service a lot.
Ultimately, the civil service is there to ensure the government of the day can govern, but only through following legal process. Core to that legal process, is that all new law must align with all the existing law, unless there’s an express repeal of the old law.
For any legal eagles out there; I know that this principle isn’t true for minor or very old regulations, but for things like the equality act; it’s the civil service’s primary job to ensure new law doesn’t create conflict or paradox between existing and new law.
This, ironically, is a very small c conservative notion. ie the existing environment prevails and changes only gradually, unless there is such a pressing need for change, that something drastic (such as repealing a law) is required.
The system makes it much easier for parliamentarians to add a regulation such as awaab’s law, or XL bully law etc as opposed to getting rid of the equality act, or ECHR membership.
That approach served the large C Conservatives very well, for a very long time. Until Blair and Brown won enough time to push through new Acts of law, not just small tweaks.
That means the civil service ensuring alignment with Blair’s law is actually doing their job, which they’re doing very well.
So Conservative politicians need to stop whinging, and look at why they didn’t repeal Blair’s laws, rather than moan at the civil servants who are basically following a classical conservative convention.
As an aside, I suspect it’s also why starmer may get more traction on things he wants to do, as much of the things he wants to do are aligned with Blair’s law. The problem is then; it’ll look like the civil service is partisan; when actually, they’re again, just ensuring new law aligns with old.
Hope that makes sense mate - happy to expand further if you think it’s a cave worth exploring for any of your upcoming interviews.
KK - I know you love thinking things through, so I’m probably just going to highlight something you’ve thought about; but I’m curious as to why you’ve never really mentioned it - and I say this as a traditionalist, who over the last 5 years have worked with the civil service a lot.
Ultimately, the civil service is there to ensure the government of the day can govern, but only through following legal process. Core to that legal process, is that all new law must align with all the existing law, unless there’s an express repeal of the old law.
For any legal eagles out there; I know that this principle isn’t true for minor or very old regulations, but for things like the equality act; it’s the civil service’s primary job to ensure new law doesn’t create conflict or paradox between existing and new law.
This, ironically, is a very small c conservative notion. ie the existing environment prevails and changes only gradually, unless there is such a pressing need for change, that something drastic (such as repealing a law) is required.
The system makes it much easier for parliamentarians to add a regulation such as awaab’s law, or XL bully law etc as opposed to getting rid of the equality act, or ECHR membership.
That approach served the large C Conservatives very well, for a very long time. Until Blair and Brown won enough time to push through new Acts of law, not just small tweaks.
That means the civil service ensuring alignment with Blair’s law is actually doing their job, which they’re doing very well.
So Conservative politicians need to stop whinging, and look at why they didn’t repeal Blair’s laws, rather than moan at the civil servants who are basically following a classical conservative convention.
As an aside, I suspect it’s also why starmer may get more traction on things he wants to do, as much of the things he wants to do are aligned with Blair’s law. The problem is then; it’ll look like the civil service is partisan; when actually, they’re again, just ensuring new law aligns with old.
Hope that makes sense mate - happy to expand further if you think it’s a cave worth exploring for any of your upcoming interviews.
How to maintain a democracy without professional politicans or political parties.
Read 'It Could Just Happen' a contemporary novel by Robert Perryment.