Thread by @fascinatorfun

This thread is about the big fat question as to why Civil Servants can be sacked for breach but MPs cannot or even suffer severe consequences.

A/ Starter for one

“Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. “
gov.uk/government/pub…

2/

B.
‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests
‘honesty’ is being truthful and open
‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence

3/

B/ contd.

‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions

4/. Let’s have a look at each section (forgetting “political impartiality as we cannot expect politicians to be “politically impartial”!)

But we can expect the rest WITH impartial investigation and EFFECTIVE enforceable outcomes

Standards of behaviour.

INTEGRITY first.

5/. I can hear the sounds of hollow laughter as we each look at how so many of our MPs have behaved on that one alone.

So let us move on to

HONESTY and OBJECTIVITY.

I hear a collapse of the gallery as we review the posts of Ker-chingsky, Mogg, Johnson, Patterson, Dorries +

6/ Impartiality.

We SHOULD expect a dispassionate assessment of high quality evidence from ALL MPs regardless of party.

Their failure to do this because they have confused PARTY political bias with good judgment is all the more reason to enforce this tenet.

7/ now let us look at Rights and Responsibilities.

Why is ALL of this front and centre of the party political discourse?

Why is not HIGH QUALITY evidence based decision making not an absolute requirement of political discourse?

With hard consequences for failure?

Tanks @Old_Ben_Kay for giving me a nudge (and link) on something I have been meaning to thread about for a while and it has kept on slipping.

There is more, but that is enough for today.

*thanks* even!