The political class are currently animated with aspects of the Leveson Inquiry into the affairs of one Jeremy Hunt and that of his Special Advisor, Adam Smith, in relation to their dealings with News Corporation.
The Leveson Inquiry is not the first that has taken place during the premiership of David Cameron – the actual number of which I have, understandably, lost count. What seems to have escaped the notice of the general public is the question of who foots the bill for these inquiries.
Reverting to the subject of Special Advisors, we learn from Wikipedia:
“A special adviser works in a supporting role to the British government. With media, political or policy expertise, their duty is to assist and advise government ministers. Special advisers are paid by central government and are styled as so-called “temporary civil servants” appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 They contrast with “permanent” civil servants in the respect that they are political appointees whose loyalties are claimed by the governing party and often particular ministers with whom they have a close relationship.”
This begs the question of how they can be styled as civil servants, temporary or otherwise, when civil servants are supposed to be apolitical (yes, alright – save the comments….) yet their loyalties lie with a political party and that particular party’s member? A further question arises, which is why would a politician need a special advisor with – leaving aside the aspect of media and political expertise – policy expertise? Are not politicians holding ministerial positions supposed to have some knowledge of the subject for which they are responsible? If not, then why the hell are they in post? Yet a further question is what knowledge do they, special advisors, possess of the subject for which they act on behalf of their minister? It would appear that the answer is none; and that they are purely employed to ensure that any news in relation to the minister, to whom they are responsible, is presented in the best possible light – in other words they are no more than what is commonly referred to as ‘spin doctors'; an art in which truth matters not.
It will not have escaped the notice of readers that special advisors are paid by central government, yet we all know – or should know – that central government has no money of it’s own, only that which they extract from the people by means of some form of taxation – in other words special advisors are paid by taxpayers. Yet where in any party’s manifesto was there mention of payment for special advisors or inquiries and the need for the funding of either? This would of course be part of any budget, one which Richard North, EU Referendum, quite correctly states should receive the agreement of those who will be providing the money. Of course, were those appointed to ministerial office to hold any experience for the subject for which they are responsible, then the need for special advisors would be negated; likewise errors of judgement would be negated and the requirement for inquiries would be negated.
That our political class are animated with matters ‘tittle-tattle’ can come as no surprise as ‘tittle-tattle’ is all they have left to occupy their time, having ceded governance of this nation abroad. That they conveniently overlook the cost of their indulgence in ‘tittle-tattle’ is but to be expected – when have they ever considered the cost of that which they impose on the electorate?
Don’t you just love
representative democracy democratised dictatorship an elective dictatorship?
Just a few thoughts whilst, as I believe the French say, Je suis être seul………..