It’s the difference in nomenclature between, say, the class of a drug (stimulant), the type of drug (modafinil), and the trade name – ProVigil, designed to heighten sales.

My initial remark was that this IS gold standard arse coverage with a 200+ year pedigree so, seriously, you can stop selling now!

But, okay, file it under ‘buried under nuance’ if you like….

j/k o/

Ah, you flatter me, you really do. If only I were able to prove the things you say. Being a most ‘umble civil servant (even of the ex- variety), however, I must content myself with throwing a few facts into the debate, taking cover, and waiting to see what happens. As it happens, I have a great respect for what LFAT has to say – as I said, he was perfectly right to say that my first comment did not adequately cover the point he was making. In return, I would just say that no-one has been able to show here that the Civil Service was acting improperly. The Civil Service is not perfect, and it certainly houses a number of bad apples (and which organisation doesn’t?), but the charges made on this particular occasion do not, in my view, stack up.

In brief, given the choice between blaming Labour and blaming the Civil Service, I know which one I’d choose.

Take it on at your peril but I assure you, it will provide and object lesson for any youngsters reading this blog! By the time he’s done he’ll prove you were never even here to read the comments you may have mis-interpreted.

This should be fun

Seriously, though, I stand by everything I said in my first comment (because it’s true), but, when you rightly pointed out that it was not sufficient explanation for all the disclosures, I pointed out another completely legitimate area for Civil Service involvement in opposition policy. My two points are in no way mutually exclusive.

As for Liam Byrne being quick of the mark – well the whole FoI request has Labour’s grubby fingerprints all over it, so it’s hardly a surprise that he was well briefed. He wouldn’t need any Civil Service help on that.

You say that the information was ‘happily’ released by the Civil Service (why ‘happily’? is some information ‘unhappily’ released?), while similar information to embarrass Labour would remain secret. Well, it’s impossible ever to know – but I would point out that the Tories have been remarkable successful at using the FoIA to embarrass the government, and it’s an open secret that many Labour ministers despair that the Act was ever passed. If you look back after the last five years or so, the number of FoI releases that have caused Labour trouble vastly outnumber those that have pained the Tories (simply by dint of Labour being in government).

How about the fact that Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was quoted immediately after the snippet that I included in my letter?: “No wonder Ken wants George Osborne to shut up. Every day we learn more about how the Tories cannot afford their tax and spending plans … Ken Clarke must be weeping into his beer.”

According to you, a Labour minister being slipped information on the sly about, say, an upcoming FOI request that embarrasses the Conservatives, would be “quite wrong” – but Liam was remarkably quick off the mark, wasn’t he! Sadly, we don’t know who the FOI request came from originally. That said, the Conservatives had no idea it was coming while Liam seemed rather well prepared for it…..

There is also Jim’s astute point that this information was happily released by the Civil Service, yet I too have a sneaking suspicion that requests for government policy analysis may not be met with such a positive response. Would you agree with that?

LFOT

You are right that not all these topics relate to a future government. But from everything I’ve been able to find (correct me if I’m wrong), they also relate to parliamentary questions tabled by MPs (often from opposition parties) asking the government for the impact of the opposition policies. To take one example: you cite the abolition of stamp duty for properties over 250,000. You’re completely right that the Treasury did this work. But it was in response to a question tabled in parliament on 29 June 2006 by Vince Cable. Civil Servants are constitutionally bound to prepare answers for such questions. Are you saying they shouldn’t be? No doubt there are other questions tabled by Labour MPs deliberately to elicit embarrassing information about the Tory proposals – but that is hardly the fault of the Civil Service.

I am in no way here to defend the Labour government, which has done serious damage to the Civil Service – however, Civil Service analysis of opposition policies happens. It happens in advance of elections, it happens in response to requests from Parliament. There is nothing wrong with it, it has been going on for decades. Indeed, it should continue. I have yet to see any suggestion that the Civil Service acts in a way to damage the opposition through this analysis. You may laugh – but I would like to see some evidence.