Remember him? He’s ‘in the papers’ …

 

Something is definitely wrong with the Westminster MSM news editors. I can’t say if the cats, the chiefs are all on holiday and the mice, the work-experience ‘journalists’ are now dancing on the newsrooms’ tables – or if the disdain the Westminster denizens, in the form of the MSM, have for the interests of us common plebs. The report of a mandarin of mandarins presenting his critique of Whitehall, hidden amongst the dross, illustrates this disdain as well.  More on that below.

Firstly, take a look at this morning’s print editions’ front pages: “Newspaper headlines: Victory over Australia and ‘Oil be back’” (link). Only good old ‘staff’ seems to have felt that The Ashes might be important for us peasants. All the other papers celebrate the Ashes Victory with just a photo, squeezed somewhere onto the front pages. There used to be a time not so long ago when winning the Ashes was top headline material. 

Why is this victory suddenly not sufficiently newsworthy? Do we no longer play cricket, as a nation? Is the sport ‘too white’? Tell that to Pakistan, India, the West Indies! Or is it ‘too male’? Are the nudgers trying to nudge us into forgetting about cricket altogether because it’s too complicated, too English, too colonialist and imperialist?

Now to the report which had me nearly fall off my perch. Under the headline “Lord Sedwill: Government needs systemic reform and modernisation” The Times summarises Lord Sedwill’s observations – yes, that man as well as other mandarins – on a report by the Thin Tank ‘Reform’. Hold on to your seats when reading this (all emphases are mine):

“In a damning critique of the institution he used to run, Sedwill said that too many of the structures of Whitehall “would be familiar to [William] Gladstone” and were not capable of meeting the challenges of the modern world. He described the civil service as “too metropolitan, too short-term, too siloed [and] too rivalrous” to be effective, adding that officials and ministers were often preoccupied with internal Westminster and Whitehall machinations rather than concentrating on the most significant challenges facing the country.” (link, paywalled)

Well! Isn’t it breath-taking to hear this former Mandarin of Mandarins describe the institutional failures of Whitehall, actually mentioning ‘internal Westminster and Whitehall machinations’, hampering proper governance? He only omitted to mention the incestuous relationship between Whitehall civil serpents and the Westminster MSM, using ‘sources’ and ‘senior sources’ as perfect means to undermine a government or at least unloved ministers and their policies – policies for which they were elected. Do I need to mention Brexit or the Home Office and ‘refugees’? Speaking of the Home Office, I found this point very intriguing:

“Sedwill told the think tank that he sometimes felt he had less power as cabinet secretary than when he ran the Home Office. “At the Home Office, I’d sometimes find I’d pulled levers and commissioned work, even if I didn’t know I had, just by casual remarks,” he said. “[As] cabinet secretary, I could barely find a lever that was connected to anything.” (link, paywalled)

I interpret this remark as meaning his under-mandarins were keen to pick up on his every word, trying to preemptively do what he might have wished for. As Cabinet Secretary however he didn’t have such minions who were trying to please him and thus the ‘levers’ he had as HO Mandarin were nonexistent. I assume the same holds true for the current cabinet secretary.

I note that some of the more pointed critiques are addressed at the Cabinet Office and its size: “Sedwill pointed out that the British cabinet was twice the size of President Biden’s and four times the size of President Xi’s, (link, paywalled). Is this a hint that yon office and thus the power of the Mandarin of mandarins ought to be curtailed? 

The core of his remarks go to the need to reform Whitehall and the whole civil service which he rightly criticised as being ‘too London-centric’. His proposals are jaw-dropping:

“Governance is highly centralised but federated at that centre. Departmental boundaries are largely happenstance, but skew ministerial and official behaviour.” He called for a fundamental reform of the way the government uses technology to improve “productivity, responsiveness, service levels and precision”. “Whitehall needs the capability to lead that transformation with sufficient diversity, including cognitive diversity, at the heart of government to understand the nation’s varied communities, challenge perceived wisdom and innovate,” (link, paywalled)

Do I detect shades of Dominic Cummings? Moreover, isn’t the timing of these proposals just perfect for incorporating them into the forthcoming Labour election manifesto? I’ll finish with some remarks from ‘senior sources’ , apparently retired, who have also spoken on this issue:

“Another former senior civil servant said that because of Whitehall’s federated structure, government departments — and in particular the Treasury — could block any initiative they didn’t like. “If No 10, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury want it to happen it will, and if either No 10, the Cabinet Office or the Treasury don’t want it to happen, it won’t,” they said. Other former senior officials spoke of an organisation that was risk-averse and filled with officials who looked to avoid taking responsibility for decisions that could go wrong. “Who wants to be held to account?” said one. “If you have a choice to be held to account for something or not be held to account I think I’ll choose the second option.” (link, paywalled)

There, in a nutshell, the failure of our government is described: no accountability, blame the Treasury for everything – and, again ‘stay anonymous’, even when clearly ‘retired’. Perhaps a necessary reform of Whitehall ought to begin with demanding Whitehall ‘sources’ to be named and not remain ‘anonymous’.

After all, don’t we, the tax-paying plebs who keep them in their cushy jobs, huge pensions included, deserve to know, at least by name, who it is who really  ‘governs’ us? Since government knows all about us, shouldn’t we at least know by name who briefs the MSM and is nudging policies? Finding their names only on the New Year Honour list isn’t sufficient. The Sedwill critique demonstrates again that Whitehall holds all of us – taxpayers and elected representatives – in disdain. “We” don’t deserve to know, “we” are too ignorant to hold them accountable.

That’s all I have for today. I think a root-and-branch reform of Whitehall should start with demanding the mandarins and their minions drop their secrecy and put their names to the ‘briefings’ they give to the MSM. That’s one step towards making them accountable. Have a good day



Print Friendly, PDF & Email