4 ms·
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
by 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.
- notahacker 6y agoBut Thatcher seeking economic advice from an economist, Tory backbenchers finding Hilton a ridiculous figure and SPADs regularly getting fired by their seniors are not remotely similar to Cummings taking personal responsibility for firing the Chancellor's employees and holding press conferences to tell the public they're wrong to be upset at him for breaking lockdown. If my argument was that PMs never listened to their advisers before you might have a counter example; but my point is that advisers whose behaviour in their personal life has a direct measurable impact on polling support for the government don't, in normal circumstances, keep their jobs, never mind do public briefings in the Rose Garden. I'm not sure why my original assertion that Cummings was an apparent 'rationalist' with quite a lot of influence has prompted quite such an impassioned defence of his actions, but my last post asked for an example of a PM going to comparable extremes to retain an adviser whose personal life is at the centre of negative media attention and you responded by pointing out PMs fire advisers quite a lot... Suffice to say you are also perhaps in a minority of one in believing that Clement VII had no influence on the Middle Ages. Especially when the point of reference the Church's influence is being compared with is a collection of moderately popular blogs and think tanks.