The "separation of powers" historically never meant between politicians and civil servants.
How does the separation of powers, which you brought up, not me, come into it then?
-
-
I get impartiality. If a CS is too tied to a party, then when that party leaves, he leaves, replacement lacks experience...
-
..and possibly ability, government becomes amateurish and incompetent. As was the case before 1850s
-
My impression from you is that an impartial civil service should be a "check" on executive power. That's what I don't get.
-
Impartiality obliges a civil servant to tell the minister what is true, not what they want to be told. That's very important.
-
I would still class that as an "efficiency" rather than a "democracy" consideration. But I think we've got to the end.
-
Thanks very much for persevering, it's been educational.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.