This is the next step in the presidentialisation of UK politics: a US-style "Administration," staffed by prime ministerial appointees from outside Parliament, whose authority flows directly from the PM, rather than from Parlt or the civil service. It has serious implications. 1/7 https://twitter.com/ukcivilservant/status/1277325470644781058

2. The transfer of power to prime ministerial appointees establishes No. 10, not Parlt or the Cabinet, as the source of executive authority. It vests power in figures who can't be questioned by MPs; & creates an administration that cannot remove the PM, as the Cabinet did in 1990

3. The UK is moving to a presidential-style executive, with none of the checks and balances of an actual presidency: no separation of powers; no serious Congressional approval process; and no powerful Congressional-style committees before which Cummings, Frost & co can be grilled

4. Asked about the rise of political appointees, Gavin Williamson told @BBCr4today: "That's what you see in the US". It was a telling response: this govt wants the powers of the US Presidency, with none of the safeguards of the American system or its checks on Executive power.

5. Let's not forget that a US president is directly elected. In Britain, a PM (like Johnson) can assume all the powers of the premiership by a vote of party activists. So vesting power in the Executive, while breaking parliamentary oversight, raises serious democratic questions.

6. If we want a more presidential system - and there's a case for that - we need to build the democratic safeguards of a presidency. Without them, every change simply concentrates power in No. 10, removes constraints on govt and weakens Parliament, the civil service & the courts.

7. Cummings tells us that "a hard rain is coming" for government. If we're not careful, that rain will wash away every constraint upon Downing Street, while feeding the flood tide of executive power. That, of course, is the idea. And that is why it must be challenged. [ENDS]