3 ms·

Oddly, I feel compelled to defend that bit of glibness. Sure, the Pope vetoed the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage because he was under extreme pressure to do

Oddly, I feel compelled to defend that bit of glibness. Sure, the Pope vetoed the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage because he was under extreme pressure to do so and Henry VIII left the Catholic Church out of frustration with this rather than anything resembling sympathy for what became the English Reformation, but the point was the Church's stance on being above worldly politics was borne out of being so integral to worldly politics they needed excuses. It'd be great for the rationalist movement if their leading figures were so influential on business, politics and actually existent AI they had to feign disinterest in them I guess the flip side of that argument also lives in British politics: the PM's advisor Dominic Cummings, who fulfils a Rasputin-like role of being on the one hand a magnet for criticism and on the other hand someone the PM will go to unprecedented extremes to continue to receive advice from[1]. He's also someone that has Overcoming Bias and Yudowsky in his short blogroll and sniggers at his detractors that "don't understand epistemological uncertainty" when his comments that his priorities "in some possible branches of the future... will be an error" get media attention. An archetypal 'rationalist' who is incidentally currently the UK's most influential policy wonk. [1]Usually British PMs don't accept their Chancellor's resignation so their adviser can fire his staff, or refrain from firing advisers whose actions become the #1 subject of public outcry from their core voter base.

hogFeast 6y ago
...right, but it isn't correct. Clement wasn't feigning disinterest, his interest was in not granting an annulment. And Henry was able to appoint Cranmer, he was able to dictate his domestic situation freely, he had no real influence beyond the spiritual (which is why Henry left). I am not sure what you mean by "world politics"...that isn't a term that makes sense in this context. Also, the situation with Cummings isn't remotely odd. What confuses people is recent history. Blair/Brown was the archetype of why you don't want a powerful Chancellor: Brown briefed against Blair and the govt constantly, his advisers used to attack other ministers, it was insane. Osborne's relationship with Cameron was a function of seeing Brown attempt to destroy Blair. But that isn't always the case when there are issues with other Ministers or the Civil Service (both of which were true when Johnson took power). Thatcher is the prime example: almost everyone in the Tory party hated her, her 1981 Budget was made by Alan Walters not Howe, Lawson resigned when she opposed ERM (again, due to advice from Walters). Equally, in foreign policy she ignored her Ministers and, more importantly, the Foreign Office (who gave uniquely terrible, bizarre advice in this period...even by FO standards). Our system is built with this tension in mind. Cameron had a strong policy unit. Blair didn't have one but he relied on a small circle of Ministers so it wasn't necessary. It is very normal, and quite necessary, for a Prime Minster to be hostage to no-one. The Prime Minister is always responsible to Parliament, that hasn't changed. But the growth of the media, growth in complexity of policy, and growth in suspicion of the Civil Service (particularly after the 70s) has led to this requirement. And btw, I don't think most people in the public understand how ludicrous the situation with Javid was (it generally wasn't reported because the person in question was liked by the media because they leaked). Javid's advisers were actively briefing against the govt daily. When Javid was sacked, his advisers were out there literally the day after briefing against the govt. It wasn't close. It wasn't even remotely close. It is a very good thing that SPADs get taken down a peg because the massive proliferation in their number since the early 90s has meant some attempting to adopt a remit that vastly exceeds their purpose.
- notahacker 6y ago
  Hi Dominic :) In all seriousness, talk about it being a 'good thing that SPADs get taken down a peg or two' is ironic when my observation was that Cummings is literally the only SPAD I can think of that any PM has appeared so beholden to. I'm sure Johnson isn't the first PM ever to let a minister go on a SPAD's advice, but the adviser is usually in the background, not personally firing the Chancellor's staff. And how often is it that a SPAD not only survives lawbreaking in his personal life becoming a focus for public outrage (instead of being summarily fired and if really valued directed to a suitably close think tank and told he'll be rehired when the fuss dies down) but has the PM stan for his 'utmost integrity' as the warmup act for his own press conference. You don't think it's odd that when the public refuses to believe a SPAD claiming the reason he took his wife out for a lockdown drive on her birthday to 'test his eyes', the PM swaps his contact lenses for glasses so he can give a statement about coronavirus affecting eyesight? By all means name me a comparable example of a PM brazening it out to defend an underling who in normal circumstances is supposed to be invisible. None of the political intrigue itself has anything to do with rationalism of course, but it does show a pretty archetypical 'rationalist' whose counsel was ranked unusually highly by a global leader As for Clement, I never said he feigned disinterest, I agreed with the original blogger that that this was one of many examples of ecclesiastical orders getting involved in all the City of Man stuff the Church's founding mythology placed them outside; often excommunication was even more transparently nothing to do with spiritual matters. Sure, excommunication proved no impediment to Henry VIII resolving his domestic issues at the cost of only a few centuries of religious strife and antagonistic relations with Catholic states, but unless your argument is that this proves the Church wasn't any more influential on the politics and economics of the Middle Ages than LessWrong on the politics and economics of the world today, I'm not really sure why you're twisting my original statement to make that tangential point
  - hogFeast 6y ago
    I understand that you can't think of an example...that is why I gave you an example (Thatcher relied almost totally on her policy unit because, again, literally everyone else hated her). I will give you another: under Cameron, everyone had the same issues with Hilton (a hint, Tory backbenchers always complain, people seem to forget this every few years). What you don't answer is why you believe that a PM wouldn't fire an adviser briefing against the govt? The only instance where this has occurred was Brown (and remember, pretty much every person around Blair asked repeatedly for Brown to be sacked,and most people ended up leaving because they couldn't deal with Brown). Indeed, this occurred under Cameron (with one of May's closest advisers) and the person was fired, no questions. The odd thing was that Javid refused to sack the people in question (I remember the day it happened the advisor was briefing the press that Johnson was going to fire Cummings...it was utter insanity, and this was after it was well known that they had leaked govt documents...this is typical for the Tories but Javid was given plenty of room, and chose to shoot himself). Being "a focus for public outrage" is neither here nor there (thankfully). Some people are perpetually outraged, doing what they demand doesn't affect things. Advisers also aren't supposed to be invisible. Again, when anyone has advised the PM, it has caused problems (with backbenchers, with the Civil Service, etc.). Under Blair, everyone complained about his advisers. Under Cameron, everyone complained about his advisers. Under Thatcher, everyone complained about her advisers. Under Brown, particularly, everyone complained about his advisers. Under May, particularly, everyone complained about her advisers. They are not supposed to be doing interviews and briefing the media (openly), and they clearly aren't supposed to be briefing against ministers in other departments...but they aren't invisible either. It isn't tangential, the original point was: Clement was influential...saying that he wasn't influential is not a tangential point.

hogFeast 6y ago

...right, but it isn't correct. Clement wasn't feigning disinterest, his interest was in not granting an annulment. And Henry was able to appoint Cranmer, he was able to dictate his domestic situation freely, he had no real influence beyond the spiritual (which is why Henry left). I am not sure what you mean by "world politics"...that isn't a term that makes sense in this context. Also, the situation with Cummings isn't remotely odd. What confuses people is recent history. Blair/Brown was the archetype of why you don't want a powerful Chancellor: Brown briefed against Blair and the govt constantly, his advisers used to attack other ministers, it was insane. Osborne's relationship with Cameron was a function of seeing Brown attempt to destroy Blair. But that isn't always the case when there are issues with other Ministers or the Civil Service (both of which were true when Johnson took power). Thatcher is the prime example: almost everyone in the Tory party hated her, her 1981 Budget was made by Alan Walters not Howe, Lawson resigned when she opposed ERM (again, due to advice from Walters). Equally, in foreign policy she ignored her Ministers and, more importantly, the Foreign Office (who gave uniquely terrible, bizarre advice in this period...even by FO standards). Our system is built with this tension in mind. Cameron had a strong policy unit. Blair didn't have one but he relied on a small circle of Ministers so it wasn't necessary. It is very normal, and quite necessary, for a Prime Minster to be hostage to no-one. The Prime Minister is always responsible to Parliament, that hasn't changed. But the growth of the media, growth in complexity of policy, and growth in suspicion of the Civil Service (particularly after the 70s) has led to this requirement. And btw, I don't think most people in the public understand how ludicrous the situation with Javid was (it generally wasn't reported because the person in question was liked by the media because they leaked). Javid's advisers were actively briefing against the govt daily. When Javid was sacked, his advisers were out there literally the day after briefing against the govt. It wasn't close. It wasn't even remotely close. It is a very good thing that SPADs get taken down a peg because the massive proliferation in their number since the early 90s has meant some attempting to adopt a remit that vastly exceeds their purpose.

notahacker 6y ago
Hi Dominic :) In all seriousness, talk about it being a 'good thing that SPADs get taken down a peg or two' is ironic when my observation was that Cummings is literally the only SPAD I can think of that any PM has appeared so beholden to. I'm sure Johnson isn't the first PM ever to let a minister go on a SPAD's advice, but the adviser is usually in the background, not personally firing the Chancellor's staff. And how often is it that a SPAD not only survives lawbreaking in his personal life becoming a focus for public outrage (instead of being summarily fired and if really valued directed to a suitably close think tank and told he'll be rehired when the fuss dies down) but has the PM stan for his 'utmost integrity' as the warmup act for his own press conference. You don't think it's odd that when the public refuses to believe a SPAD claiming the reason he took his wife out for a lockdown drive on her birthday to 'test his eyes', the PM swaps his contact lenses for glasses so he can give a statement about coronavirus affecting eyesight? By all means name me a comparable example of a PM brazening it out to defend an underling who in normal circumstances is supposed to be invisible. None of the political intrigue itself has anything to do with rationalism of course, but it does show a pretty archetypical 'rationalist' whose counsel was ranked unusually highly by a global leader As for Clement, I never said he feigned disinterest, I agreed with the original blogger that that this was one of many examples of ecclesiastical orders getting involved in all the City of Man stuff the Church's founding mythology placed them outside; often excommunication was even more transparently nothing to do with spiritual matters. Sure, excommunication proved no impediment to Henry VIII resolving his domestic issues at the cost of only a few centuries of religious strife and antagonistic relations with Catholic states, but unless your argument is that this proves the Church wasn't any more influential on the politics and economics of the Middle Ages than LessWrong on the politics and economics of the world today, I'm not really sure why you're twisting my original statement to make that tangential point
- hogFeast 6y ago
  I understand that you can't think of an example...that is why I gave you an example (Thatcher relied almost totally on her policy unit because, again, literally everyone else hated her). I will give you another: under Cameron, everyone had the same issues with Hilton (a hint, Tory backbenchers always complain, people seem to forget this every few years). What you don't answer is why you believe that a PM wouldn't fire an adviser briefing against the govt? The only instance where this has occurred was Brown (and remember, pretty much every person around Blair asked repeatedly for Brown to be sacked,and most people ended up leaving because they couldn't deal with Brown). Indeed, this occurred under Cameron (with one of May's closest advisers) and the person was fired, no questions. The odd thing was that Javid refused to sack the people in question (I remember the day it happened the advisor was briefing the press that Johnson was going to fire Cummings...it was utter insanity, and this was after it was well known that they had leaked govt documents...this is typical for the Tories but Javid was given plenty of room, and chose to shoot himself). Being "a focus for public outrage" is neither here nor there (thankfully). Some people are perpetually outraged, doing what they demand doesn't affect things. Advisers also aren't supposed to be invisible. Again, when anyone has advised the PM, it has caused problems (with backbenchers, with the Civil Service, etc.). Under Blair, everyone complained about his advisers. Under Cameron, everyone complained about his advisers. Under Thatcher, everyone complained about her advisers. Under Brown, particularly, everyone complained about his advisers. Under May, particularly, everyone complained about her advisers. They are not supposed to be doing interviews and briefing the media (openly), and they clearly aren't supposed to be briefing against ministers in other departments...but they aren't invisible either. It isn't tangential, the original point was: Clement was influential...saying that he wasn't influential is not a tangential point.