Taking back control from unelected bureaucrats

[wilts rover]

In the year to March 2019 the Tory Party paid out £9.6million to their appointed and unelected special advisors.

Since becoming PM Johnson has increased the number of advisors by 20%.

His chief strategist Dominic Cummings is paid around £100k per year. Four other advisors are paid more than him at £125k - £150k per year - over 4 times the average wage.

Sticking it to the elites on behalf of the working class eh! Or the elites conning the gullible to further enrich themselves - you takes your choice...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/downing-street-special-advisers-spad-boris-johnson-cummings-a9255666.html

[selby]

  To remain in power, I would say that is cheap, it is worth a lot more than that to them.

[albie]

Hard to argue with that, Selby.

Those backing the Tories will see it as money well spent;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-russian-donors-have-stepped-tory-funding/

The thing is that they will be wanting a return on the investment...payback for support given.
Thats the problem with "taking back control", who do you give it to once the job is done?

[River Don]

The Labour Party could do a lot worse than to market test their candidates and see how they perform on camera and how their policies go down before members ever get to vote.

That probably sounds a bit too capitalist for their liking.

[wilts rover]

  To remain in power, I would say that is cheap, it is worth a lot more than that to them.

You would say that. But this is taxpayers money - above and beyond what is already allocated for the civil service - that is supposed to be used for the benefit of the country not the Tory party.

So you clearly dont have a problem with the government deciding to spend taxpayers money on unelected bureaucrats - which I thought was supposed to be the main reason for us leaving the EU?

[glosterred]

  To remain in power, I would say that is cheap, it is worth a lot more than that to them.

You would say that. But this is taxpayers money - above and beyond what is already allocated for the civil service - that is supposed to be used for the benefit of the country not the Tory party.

So you clearly dont have a problem with the government deciding to spend taxpayers money on unelected bureaucrats - which I thought was supposed to be the main reason for us leaving the EU?

Does anyone know if Labour had these advisors when they were last in power, if they did how much was spent on them? Or is this just a Tory thing?


P.S. just found this, seems Labour started the system of special advisers


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_adviser_(UK)

[wilts rover]

  To remain in power, I would say that is cheap, it is worth a lot more than that to them.

You would say that. But this is taxpayers money - above and beyond what is already allocated for the civil service - that is supposed to be used for the benefit of the country not the Tory party.

So you clearly dont have a problem with the government deciding to spend taxpayers money on unelected bureaucrats - which I thought was supposed to be the main reason for us leaving the EU?

Does anyone know if Labour had these advisors when they were last in power, if they did how much was spent on them? Or is this just a Tory thing?


P.S. just found this, seems Labour started the system of special advisers


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_adviser_(UK)

As I said - clearly you dont have a problem with the government deciding to spend taxpayers money on unelected bureaucrats - which I thought was supposed to be the main reason for us leaving the EU?

[glosterred]

It may have been for some the main reason for leaving, but as I voted to remain the questIon is mute. I personally don’t care if they have them or not, it seems you do.

[ravenrover]

Morgan and Goldsmith are they classed as unelected  bureaucrats?

[drfchound]

Going back to the referendum, most of the people I know who voted to leave said they voted that way “to get back control of our borders”
Not one of them said anything about unelected beurocrats.

[albie]

Hound,

The trouble with that is that you can't just take back border control without the rest of it.
Everything else goes into the mix, and comes out different.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Going back to the referendum, most of the people I know who voted to leave said they voted that way “to get back control of our borders”
Not one of them said anything about unelected beurocrats.

funnily enough "as you will all recall"  Cameron (whose catch phrase once was "we are all in it together" (until he jumped ship) said this at the 2009 Tory Conference and  mentioned unelected beurocrats

Conservative Conference 2009 Thursday 8 October 2009 14.43 BST

Full text of David Cameron's speech


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-in-full

look near the end 7/8th's of the way down

"EU But if there is one political institution that needs decentralisation, transparency, and accountability, it is the EU.

For the past few decades, something strange has been happening on the left of British politics. People who think of themselves as progressives have fallen in love with an institution that no one elects, no one can remove, and that hasn't signed off its accounts for over a decade.

Indeed even to question these things is, apparently, completely beyond the pale. Well, here is a progressive reform plan for Europe.

Let's work together on the things where the EU can really help, like combating climate change, fighting global poverty and spreading free and fair trade.

But let's return to democratic and accountable politics the powers the EU shouldn't have.

And if we win the election, we will have as the strongest voice for our country's interests, the man who is leading our campaign for a referendum, the man who will be our new British Foreign Secretary: William Hague"

game set and match

funnily enough we had a conversation tonight as to whether Boris & Cameron would swear their allegances to their causes on the bible  so "chameleon" Cameron isn't doing too well

[drfchound]

Hi albie, I totally agree with you (posted two comments up) and I guess that most people would do.
However, none of us knew back then what a complicated mess was awaiting us all.
Hindsight eh.


CLH, as I said above, none of the people I know mentioned unelected beurocrats.
Generally, people had no idea how complicated leaving would be.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Point of fact. MANY people were saying 3.5 years ago how complicated leaving would be, but apparently that was just Project Fear...

One person who certainly DIDN'T seem to understand how complicated it would be is our current PM. Because he supported Theresa May when she said she would never treat Northern Ireland differently to Great Britain in the Brexit negotiations, then he resigned and voted against her when she negotiated a deal that would have treated the whole UK the same, then he voted FOR that deal, then he said that deal was a betrayal, then he negotiated a deal that treated NI differently from GB and called that a triumph.

Almost like he had other objectives all along ...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh aye. And it was obviously even more complicated than that for the PM.

Because all the way through the election campaign, he said his deal wouldn't lead to NI being treated differently than GB, whereas anyone who actually read his deal could see the specific words that said it would be.

And then immediately after the election, some things which HAD been in his deal, like workers' rights, mysteriously vanished from it.

Good job we've got a PM with a strong eye for detail, and a ruling party that's going to keep an eye on him, eh?