Dominic Cummings Covid evidence

[Newtonianmechanics]

Is anyone going to watch this man give evidence today?

Apparently there is a vigil in Barnard Castle ahead of this.

The shopping trolleys emoji seems to mean they think Carrie was controlling Boris from the last few days. Wonder if this will feature.

But what is in that report is what I called for too.

It is what the Labour party called for.

Charities.

Children's commissioner.

Teachers.

It is basic stuff. We all recognised the structural gaps.

But what is in that report is what I called for too.

I’m glad you’re happy with it.

Did you also want these two recommendations in the conclusions part?

At the time or now? -

‘government to appoint a Cabinet Minister for Children and Young People, and make sure in times of crisis that they are involved in key decisions. They should pass a law to make schools "essential infrastructure" so MPs have more oversight before they can be closed’

That latter bit is only in the blog , not the report and I can't agree because I don't know what oversight means or which MPs. Nothing would get done if they all had to agree!

It is infuriating that you attribute things to people with no basis.

Yourbposts present a false dichotomy between you (who alone very wisely recognised kids were being neglected) and everyone else on MN (who couldn't see or didn't care about children).

When in actual fact pretty much everyone could see the issues as they were bleeding obvious.

Sure can you answer on essential infrastructure part, and cabinet member

As I know the first went down badly on here at the time it was proposed, did you agree with it then? Or now even

I wouldn't let that poster get to you, @MidnightOnceMore . We lurkers can all see the games they're playing.

And they are doing the very useful job of keeping this thread bumped.

I really appreciate all the live coverage of the inquiry you stalwart folks have been providing. Thank you.

Oh lovely. Good old pandemic usuals lurking away.

It’s a discussion of a report from Save the Children

An organisation focussed on children

If that ‘gets to you’ on a parenting site, well good luck to you.

It is telling how annoyed people are that the report is there

Should have been earlier, but I’ll take now

@EasternStandard

I wish you very well, but I don't wish to discuss this repeated very narrow topic over and over so I'm bowing out.

You were not alone in spotting the issues or calling for more care for children in 2020 & 2021. The things in the Save The Children report were highlighted by many organisations and people. It is a shame the government ignored the voices.

I hope you have a good day.

'Oh lovely. Good old pandemic usuals lurking away. '

It’s a discussion of a report from Save the Children

An organisation focussed on children

'If that ‘gets to you’ on a parenting site, well good luck to you.'

One that many have said we agree with. I guess you just like loops. 🤷🏼‍♀️

So no answer on essential infrastructure

That is a shame. It was recommended at the time and I recall many of the posters on here were very much against it. Maybe you too.

I advised someone else to let it wash yesterday too!

Getting back to which...

Have understood correctly? During the pandemic, Cummings wanted to get "that cunt"[sic] Helen MacNamara sacked?

And now there's an inquiry, during the parts I watched he sat there shoehorning her name in every five minutes and praising her to the skies?

He's so transparent.

He's realised he will come out of this badly, so he's trying to associate himself with someone he's spotted as a winner. And even slot himself in as slightly superior to her and entitled to grade her on her performance. No eating of humble pie and "I was wrong, she was right" for our Dom.

He must think our heads zip up at the back.

Of course, slipping himself in behind someone he thought would be a winner was what Cummings' did with Johnson, too.

It's obviously his MO.

I don't think anyone should be concerned that Cummings is suddenly going to be considered a serious political entity; yes he probably does understand latterly that it looks bad, But he is independently wealthy, his particular vice is seeking power. After this inquiry I would say that he is unlikely to ever get close to it again

You do realise people quote and ask questions on it. The confusion from some has meant the same thing over and over

I guess you can’t avoid it either. Do at least try…

Yy to Cummings seeking power.

I've never seen him as likely to be elected to anything himself. He works through other people who are more presentable, and promises to get them onto the throne. So it's not us plebs he imagines he's selling himself to right now, it's his future frontmen/women.

I agree.

He hasn't got the charisma to be elected.

He will have hated being told to slow down and speak up as he thinks he is the cleverest most important person in the room.

Have understood correctly? During the pandemic, Cummings wanted to get "that cunt"[sic] Helen MacNamara sacked?

Strictly speaking, not quite
Helen McNamara was a Civil Servant. The only person who could sack her is the head of the Civil Service.
Cummings was a Special Advisor (SPAD) SPADS are not civil servants, but hired by the political party who is in government and can be hired and fired at the will of the ministers.

He didn't have any powers to sack Helen.

But what he did try to do, was get her moved out of No 10 and Cabinet Office into a different department.
Helen had a very senior role in the Cabinet Office and worked out of No 10. By trying to move her out would have been seen as a "demotion" and awful for her.

Sorry, i know I'm being picky 😁

I agree with eveything you say about him changing his tune about her. He thinks we are all stupid and can't see what he's doing.

He has limitations and quite serious ones. In fact, you might say his flaw was obvious and is latently there in his evidence.

I don't think it is any kind or secret that Cummings despised the Civil Service. And he came into power with the idea of shaking it up.

He was hugely naive about that; because even if he could make people's lives personally difficult, or be offensive, it is a huge machine. Vast. If you use it well it will deliver.

Johnson and Cummings failed not just because of their personal flaws but a failure to realise that really powerful PMs need to play happily with institutions to get what you want. If you go in and tell someone they are shit, you think everything they say is wrong or they are a cunt, what happens?

Basic psychology will tell you nothing, then resistance. There was a reason Cummings was kept on a short leash by Gove and Cameron, which was that they recognized he could destroy as well as create. Johnson didn't have the wit to realise that in giving him extreme power his own premiership would be ruined. It never really recovered after Cummings left, and you just had a conspicuous people pleaser in the top job. That is how you get an 80 seat majority and waste it.

Cummings was a great strategist. In the sense he could win big campaigns

Brexit a good example

One day I’ll get to ask someone what happened so he switched and went postal with the partygate campaign

I’ve met a few people who work in the area, and have found their answers interesting

Agree with this: really powerful PMs need to play happily with institutions to get what you want

The Tories since 2019 have wasted so much energy falling out with people they needed to work with. It is amazing how they threw away their 80 seat electoral acheivement.

If they had handled the pandemic and Brexit properly, they would potentially have been in such a different place.

The idea of benign institutions doesn’t float so well on FWR these days

I look at what they can do to someone not in line, eg Baroness Falkner and it shows how a captured work environment can try to push out decent voices for women

If it helps, I can explain the difference between Civil Servants and Special Advisors (SPAD)

I'm not aiming this at anyone, just sometimes I see some people may not understand how it all works.and the difference.
Disclaimer: this is just going to be the basics and quite a long post.

Civil Servants
I'll firstly admit, I am biased because I'm a Civil Servant 😁
We are employees, paid by the taxpayer.
We work for each government department, regardless of which politcal party is in power.
Our own political opinions should not and do not influence how we do our jobs.
We are hired under the Employment laws, i.e open and fair, applications, interviews etc
We are also sacked under Employment Law I.e following HR policies.

Our role is to listen to the Minister and whatever policy they want to do, Civil Servants have to do it.
The issue is, most Civil Servants have been working for 20 -40 years, so we have seen it all. We know the problems, what works, what doesn't work, the legal issues etc.

Civil Servants will try to explain the pitfalls/issues to the Ministers.
But this causes problems: Civil servants think they are being helpful, Ministers think we are being obstructive.

This is why the likes of Dominic Cummings loathe Civil Servants, he and the Ministers think they can just announce a policy and Civil servants should just do it, no questions asked.

Helen McNamara, Marton Reynolds, Simon Case etc are all Civil Servants.

Special Advisor (SPAD)
These are not really "employees" as such, I'm not sure how you would describe thier Employment status.
They are hired by the Prime Minister or Minister.
There is no normal hiring process. PM and Ministers will hire whoever they like, always people who share thier political opinion.

Boris and Dominic is an example. Boris became PM, he rang Dom and said "I'd like you to be my spad", Dom said "Yes please"

But with this comes the risk of firing. They can be fired without real cause and on the spot.

The SPAD role is focused on helping the PM/Minister to come up with policies and give them advice and what they think the priorities are.
SPADs cannot influence or control the Civil Servants, they can only influence and control the PM/Ministers.

Ideally, how it should work is this:
▪︎ PM/Minister with the SPAD, come up with a policy they want to introduce.
▪︎ Once they come up with a plan, they invite the Civil servants in, to explain the policy and plan.
▪︎ The Civil servants explain what the risks are, any legal repercussions, what actions they need to take, the next steps, how long it'll take to get put into place etc.
▪︎ The PM/Minister listen to the advice and can amend/update the policy, mitigate the risks and so on.
▪︎ The Civil servants go off and get it all sorted.

That's basically, in a nutshell, how a good respectful government should work.

(Nb, I know I've missed some bits out)

Electoral accountability isn't enough. Is there some sort of Govt. version of Corporate Manslaughter? These arseholes destroy things and swan off into the sunset. See also David Cameron.