Craig. I'm not sure we're necessarily comparing like with like here, it depends on terms of references for the committees and how they're defined within the corporate organisational and governance structures. I'm assuming your stategist and communications roles are defined within the organisational structures. (I have to admit I've not looked for the SAGE ToRs.) However, my understanding is Cummings is Johnson's special adviser so not part of formal civil service or cabinet structure. (In the same way Javid had his own advisers, so resigned when not allowed to keep them.) I suspect Cummings, rightly or wrongly, may be viewed as a "spy in the camp" and might inhibited or bias conversation or, more importantly, influence the way things are minutes, whereas someone from, say, the civil service - thegovernment's corporate structure - word be acceptable as it is in your committees and organisational structures. I wasn't saying this doesn't happen or is always wrong, I was saying it can have dangers, particularly if someone is injected into an existing group. (Of course, many of us will suspect Cummings's motives.) Now, if the committee wasn't working it might be a sensible move to focus or direct it but I've seen no suggestion of that? As someone said, we won't know for 100 years ... On another point, a potential issue with making attendees' names public is that they could then be lobbied.
Michael Ixer ● 2239d