The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to complain about it.
Your question being this:There is a really strong argument in favour of a depoliticised civil service. There must be.It's just that I've never heard it.Are we to take it you're going to write a post defending the politicization of the civil service? I should probably wait 'til you've done it and restrict myself to recording my astonishment that you've never heard a strong argument against it. The basic argument is one of technocratic efficiency but it's difficult to comment further until I know what you think. But my initial reaction is to think: what do you mean by the 'civil service' and can you really think that it could be desirable to have an entirely politicized one? What, for example, what would a 'politicized' Benefits Agency look like? Would a change of government mean a complete change of staff right down to AO level? Or would they retain the existing ones but they would be required to 'convert' in some hideous way? P.S. In anticipation, I suspect you're not talking about the civil service at all but merely the most senior part of it? Hence your comments about Oxbridge domination and all that. How - after the Iraq dossiers - you can think even this more limited politicization is desirable is completely beyond me. To counter the impression that you've went done gone lost your damn mind, please tell us what the hell you're on about here?
Post a Comment