Really, as the Torygraph’s chief political correspondent, @christopherhope should know that senior civil servants are *already* subject to performance reviews. This is basic.
Also, it is a myth (derived from one of the less accurate episodes of “Yes, Minister” that Ministers are forbidden from talking to (or “quizzing”) “junior civil servants”.
The real story - which @christopherhope may have missed - would be if Patel (after several years as a Minister) or her Spads still haven’t cottoned onto the fact that senior civil servants have performance reviews or that she can talk to junior civil servants if she wants to.
If so, that might suggest that it isn’t the civil servants in the Home Office who need annual performance reviews.
The alternative is that @christopherhope has been spun a largely dud story.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The SI it refers to revokes the recognition *in the UK* of the EU common ski instructor test: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1038… (see (a)).
But - obviously - that doesn’t affect anything happening in the EU. The reason why training UK national ski instructors have to get their Eurotest qualification in December is that as a matter of EU law the regulation setting up that test applies only to EU nationals.
Preliminary and important observation: I cannot speak for the accuracy of Matthew’s story - and like any journalistic account, it doubtless leaves out much of relevance. In particular, the case for a lockdown probably didn’t really depend wholly on the 4,000 deaths/day estimate.
So let’s make this a bit abstract (but as the story shows, a realistic abstraction).
But there is on any view serious cause for concern about the untransparent spending of huge sums of public money on entities with links to ministers and advisers. The BBC should be reporting this: and I simply don’t understand why it isn’t. @bbclaurak@bbcnickrobinson.
At the very least, one of the BBC’s excellent legal correspondents could be allowed to report near the top of a flagship BBC programme on the current legal actions, explaining what they are about and where they have got to (permission having been granted in at least one case).
Not sure that @timothy_stanley knows what he is talking about. Neither reducing the no. of judges nor “bringing in specialists” amounts to “rolling back” “Blair era” reforms. The HoL judicial committee had the same number of judges as now, and were no less (or more) “specialist”.
Entirely unclear what “specialist” means here, anyway. Though some have argued that there are too many commercial lawyers and not enough crime/family specialists.
The article is a mess anyway: perhaps because whatever is being discussed is also a mess.
Well, quite. Though note that the job was originally (in 1998) given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in different clothes).
Since the judiciary don’t want to be settling political arguments raising no real legal issues (and they don’t, and dispose of them fast), what’s the problem?