Government Cabinet positions

[OzzyR1]

Don't think this is for NPE as more of a rambling thought...

Is it just me or does anyone else find it faintly ridiculous that a Govt (of any colour) comes to power and suddenly cabinet positions and responsibilities are handed out like kids divvying up sweets after Halloween.

Doesn't seem to be any recognition of experience or background, much less consideration of suitability.

Naming no names obviously, but have a crack at being Chancellor of the Exchequer, doesn't matter that you've got no experience, it'll be OK... that didn't work out then, why don't you be responsible of the whole of the UK Health and and Social Care instead.

Person you've taken over from, she was crap at that job so we'll make her in charge of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport instead - what can go wrong??

Government really is the only place I can think of where you can be put in charge (on the highest level of responsibility possible), with nothing to back you up on your CV.

Crazy.

[smifffymoto]

It’s a bit like being a parent,no previous experience,learn the job as you go and anybody can have a go a it with varying levels of success.
The biggest difference is that your children hold you to account and there are consequences to your fk ups.

I really dislike most politicians.

[Randy Winkman]

As a civil servant of many years experience it surprises me too. But my observation after 30+ years in the job is that the ones that look really promising in view of past experience don't actually seem to achieve more than the rest.

[zetec]

I imagine that the cabinet ministers don’t actually do much of the ‘work’. They will have expert staff who will crunch numbers or work out policies and give the results to the minister who then makes the decision on what to do. I might be talking rubbish but that’s how I imagine it!

[bitchstewie]

I actually think it's even better than that because there are almost certainly people sitting on the benches who have expertise in all of those areas but being made a Minister generally comes down to how far your tongue has been up the Prime Minister's arse and how loudly you've cheered the speeches and how many times you've defended all the lies.

[HappyClappy]

William Pitt became PM at the mere age of 24 and is considered to be one of the most successful we’ve ever had.

You’ve either got what it takes to lead or you haven’t.

[Monkeylegend]

Some of them can be very hands on though.

Mind you they need to be careful where they put them.

[23.7]

bhstewie said:

I actually think it's even better than that because there are almost certainly people sitting on the benches who have expertise in all of those areas but being made a Minister generally comes down to how far your tongue has been up the Prime Minister's arse and how loudly you've cheered the speeches and how many times you've defended all the lies.

Isn't that the same as any organisation, you surround yourself with loyalty.

[bitchstewie]

23.7 said:

Isn't that the same as any industry, you surround yourself with loyalty.

To varying degrees yes absolutely.

But overall I'd imagine the majority of businesses are more meritocratic than cabinet positions and in most businesses even if you surround yourself with loyalty I'd expect the people working in the business are there because they have some skills in that field.

[23.7]

bhstewie said:

23.7 said:

Isn't that the same as any industry, you surround yourself with loyalty.

To varying degrees yes absolutely.

But overall I'd imagine the majority of businesses are more meritocratic than cabinet positions and in most businesses even if you surround yourself with loyalty I'd expect the people working in the business are there because they have some skills in that field.

Devils advocate mode, an outsider spots the flaws.

[craigjm]

At least they have to be MPs unlike the US administration’s where you can just hire your mates

[popegregory]

I remember being confused at the age of about 7 when (I think) the BSE or foot and mouth crisis was all over the news as we lived out in the country and I couldn’t compute that the guy in charge of farming wasn’t the country’s top farmer. Granted, I had no idea how you would feasibly qualify the country’s top farmer but still. However, I think the answer is to be found in all of the threads on here where we talk about the ridiculous barriers to entry for being an MP. Teachers get hit with the “those who can, do” “philosophy” but it’s every bit as true for parliament; the people with actual experience and relevance in those fields are having successful careers in those fields and then pop up as advisers; the minister themselves are only there to weigh up arguments and make a decision that inevitably won’t suit everyone.

[vaud]

It’s the difference between a technocrat and a political government.

[Dr Jekyll]

craigjm said:

At least they have to be MPs unlike the US administration’s where you can just hire your mates

You can do that here, make your mate a Lord and that counts as being in parliament. Actually that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it means you could select your mates, but it also means you could select people who actually know what they're doing.

[Countdown]

Politicians don't actually "do" they just set the direction of travel, it's the Civil Service that put it into place.

It's like remodelling your house - you decide on what you want it to look like, the Architects/Builders/Interior Designer help to create your vision.

[biggbn]

Our current PM has a second class degree in the classics and our last a second class degree in Geography, perhaps why she couldn't find her way out of Europe? Politics is a personality and power game, rarely are people 'qualified'.

[vaud]

Countdown said:

Politicians don't actually "do" they just set the direction of travel, it's the Civil Service that put it into place.

It's like remodelling your house - you decide on what you want it to look like, the Architects/Builders/Interior Designer help to create your vision.

Agreed - they set policy.

[23.7]

Countdown said:

Politicians don't actually "do" they just set the direction of travel, it's the Civil Service that put it into place.

It's like remodelling your house - you decide on what you want it to look like, the Architects/Builders/Interior Designer help to create your vision.

Good analogy.

[voyds9]

Randy Winkman said:

As a civil servant of many years experience it surprises me too. But my observation after 30+ years in the job is that the ones that look really promising in view of past experience don't actually seem to achieve more than the rest.

Then the question should be, is it set up to facilitate them achieving much or just to give them the illusion of power a la Yes Minister

[Ian Geary]

A few rndom thoughts from me

-first: criticism of politicians. Yes it's easy to throw insults at them from behind anonymous user names on the internet. But at least they have put themselves publically above the parapet to do something. Without elected politicians we'd be a dictatorship

- second: I'm local govt, but the civil service is a big employer. They bring the skills and delivery, politicians being the direction and accountability.

- third: ok, the accountability doesn't really work on a micro level. The health secretary only got fired (quit) because of an affair

- fourth: so are we surprised the PM selection is a popularity contest? When becoming an MP and even PM is itself a popularity contest? The PM needs to be sure the team he selects will support him, and attract votes. Collective cabinet responsibility etc.

Ministers vary by ability: James Brokenshire (who sadly dies recently) was said to be very competent, which suggests a rule of competence is inverse to the noise they make. Gove is hated by teachers for messing up education, but can one person really do that much on their own? And I suspect many senior politicians have staff doing the "thinking" for them (obviously that thinking has to suit their politics).

So how much does the minister actually do? (I accept they've very busy)

All in all, it seems to be a bad system, apart from every other political system tried. What if we appoint SAGE to handle covid? The public would have gone apest.

What if we appoint BRAKE to manage roads? Etc. I don't want plebiscites over every decision either, given how stupid many people seem to be.

The feedback loop of elected people are needed, and given that, it stands to reason they must be put high up rather than lower down.