Ministers are elected, accountable to parliament, and the public at least every 5 years in a general election. As re-election is the goal, risk taking is inevitable - particularly at a time that polls are against them.
They do not appoint or have the ability to fire their civil servants, but may have some influence.
They may know little about the department which they head, and are reliant on their permanent
staff for informed advice.
Their policies are dominated by public perceptions and media reporting. They are sometimes fortunate that policies align with rational analysis.
Civil Servants are in post to support ministers in the delivery of their policies. They are largely unaccountable. They are secure (pay, pension etc) unless they seriously misbehave.
At a senior level they will probably have several years (or decades) of experience in public administration and some a detailed knowledge of departmental issues
They tend to be risk averse - future promotions and roles may be compromised by making obviously wrong judgements. Jobs tend not to be at risk!
That different views on some issues arise is no surprise. I would expect senior civil servants to be sufficiently robust to defend their views no matter how robust and intense the debate.
Ultimately the minister is accountable.
Similar ministerial behaviour with more junior staff who may not have the seniority or experience to be expected to defend their position is rightly unacceptable.
|
