I've found the stupidest political take

[andrewducker]

One of the many Conservative subgroups has decided that it's wrong that Carrie Symonds (Johnson's fiance) has any input into his political decisions, because she's not elected.

Now, she may be giving him advice they disagree with. She may even be giving him terrible advice. But the idea that he shouldn't be talking to his fiance about the decisions he's making because she's not elected is just ludicrous.

Is he not allowed to get ideas from books which aren't written by sitting MPs? Is he not allowed to talk to external experts who aren't elected? Not allowed to talk to members of the public in case he listens to them before they're voted on?

He's an MP. He gets to vote on laws. And he gets to listen to, and learn from, whoever he deems appropriate. If someone doesn't like the opinions he takes on, and the decisions he makes, that's fine. We can totally judge him for that. If someone thinks that he associates with awful people and judges him for that, then that's also fair enough. But the idea that he shouldn't listen to anyone unless they've been elected is beyond laughable.

Comments

[mountainkiss]

SpAds aren't elected and their entire purpose in life is to advise ministers. Are these people suggesting that all should be dismissed? Or that Carrie should be paid?

[andrewducker]

Exactly!

I don't remember them complaining about Cummings being unelected!

[mountainkiss]

I think most of them did, but that’s because he behaved with such contempt towards them rather than because they thought there shouldn’t be a head of No.10.

[danieldwilliam]

I think there is a distinction in the public's mind between advisors, executives and eminence grise which probably turns a bit on their personal accountability and the transparancy of their input and the inputs to them.

There was a general sceptisim on the part of the public (at least those who were paying attention) during the New Labour era about the role of spindoctors and Spads. Alistair Campbell and Damian McBride in particular was viewed with some concern.

I think one of the specific things about Cummings was that he was suspected of attempting to run the government through a weak-willed and feeble-minded PM (whilst also not being actually very good at it.)

[mountainkiss]

And Derek!

[danieldwilliam]

Indeed, he was often singled out for comment - although more within the community of the PLP than outside it IIRC.

[mountainkiss]

The more serious point might be that a sophisticated debate is needed about balance here. A fully transparent and externally accountable advisor is of less use to the principal, though both extremes are probably bad.

[danieldwilliam]

I agree.

If the advisor can't articulate things that are controversial or nuanced then they're of no use to the principle.

And the principle retains ultimate responsibility for the advisors they pick and the influence they allow them to have.

I have some suspicions about the particular case in point here.

And I'm not sure English politics does nuance at the moment, not least because it currently doesn't do facts or memory very well.

[mountainkiss]

It is difficult. There is a point of view that if the principal has a bad character then there is an inevitable corruption of even the best and best-intentioned advice. Other viewpoints also available. My jury is out. I’m waiting to see if No. 10 can settle down in the Rosenfield era. Initially it looked good but the rapid turnover of Union advisors isn’t a great sign.

I make no assumptions about Carrie because I don’t trust a single word the press says about her. See also: Meghan.

[danieldwilliam]

Aye, one of my suspicions is along the Meghan axis.

[mountainkiss]

TBF the PM was a good user of good advisers as Mayor of London but (1) much easier portfolio (2) his character may have hardened since then.

[danieldwilliam]

Drawing from Machievelli, bad character in what dimension and in the service of what? A thuggish ideologue (like Thatcher) is unlikely to have the same difficulties with their advisor pool as the current incumbent.

Re: the Union advisors - does the modern Conservative Party actually care about the Union? When there isn't an immediate and career enhancing crisis to respond to?

[mountainkiss]

My understanding of the PM’s specific bad character is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality (a topic on which I should be very careful in taking the moral high ground), a terror of being disliked that makes him promise people what they ask regardless of its good sense, realisability or any other conflicting promises he might have made, and a complete lack of understanding that truth has any meaning as a concept. But all this might be (1) unfair and / or (2) changeable with the right team around him.

[danieldwilliam]

This article on the Union Unit and, tangentially, on the role or otherwise of various advisors.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/bewildered-boris-johnson-stands-by-as-failing-union-unit-becomes-a-laughing-stock/

[mountainkiss]

That last point is accurate and complicated. I’m fascinated by the speed at which Steve Baker has destroyed his political capital and credibility.

[danieldwilliam]

How so? I don't think I've been following it closely.

[andrewducker]

I'm not aware of him. What happened?

[jack]

Given the galaxy-brain stupidity of... so much else I barely dared read the article :) My first impression is that no newspaper should ever pass up an opportunity to say "Normans Tebbit and Lamont".

I'm not sure I agree with you though. I mean, I do agree with everything you said, it's the responsibility of Johnson (as anyone in any job) to judge what's right, including taking as much or as little advice from someone else as they judge appropriate. I assume most people take SOME advice from their spouse (or parent, or child, or therapist or whatever) which pertains to their job, but (correctly) don't officially acknowledge it, just present it as their own decision.

But I assume that's the problem -- the implication is that he's not taking advice which is GOOD for the role he's supposed to fulfil, he's doing what his partner wants for other reasons. At least that's my stereotype of "undue influence" and I assume that's what people think is happening (and pretty plausible).

[mountainkiss]

Define "good advice" though. I think most people in politics would be likely to define this unexamined as "advice with which I agree", and bad advice similarly.

[cellio]

It also seems inconsistent. Do MPs not have staffs, interns, occasional hired consultants, public-relations people who bring them input from (gasp) the public, etc? Do they not read newspapers, Facebook posts, tweets? Do none of them have families?

[andrewducker]

Yup! It really is remarkably remarkably stupid!

[aldabra]

If they didn't approve of his choices of life partner they could have not elected him party leader.

[armiphlage]

Wouldn't she be one of his constituents?

[lilysea]

Unless people are offering Carrie Symonds or her friends/family members money or jobs in exchange
for her influencing Johnson, I really don't see any issue/any problem.

[danieldwilliam]

I do wonder if that might be part of the issue in the background.