The mandarins of Whitehall hard at work – blabbing anonymously

 

If you were ‘only’ looking at headlines on your smartphone, the one gracing Al Beeb’s compilation of print media front pages would make you think that there are only two issues: the NHS, again, and a ‘civil service crisis’. Coronation? Who cares! See for yourselves: “Newspaper headlines: ‘NHS leaders despair’ and ‘civil service crisis’” (link). 

Anything pertaining to the civil service and Whitehall obviously draws my full attention.The DT leads with a report that Ms Sue Gray of Partygate fame was already in ‘secret negotiations with Starmer’:

“A report by the Cabinet Office is on Tuesday expected to find that [Ms Gray] entered negotiations with Labour while she was working with the department’s Propriety and Ethics Team (PET). At the time the team was advising MPs on the privileges committee investigating Boris Johnson, which Tory sources said on Monday presented a conflict of interest.” (paywalled link)

That isn’t all. ‘Sources’ also told the DT about their “growing concern within Government that he may have been holding secret talks with other top civil servants.” (paywalled link). Sadly but unsurprisingly, we’re not given details on who else has been secretly collaborating with Starmer. The following throws a light on why Whitehall is teeming with lefties (all emphases are mine):

“A Whitehall source said of Ms Gray: “She had a role influencing and guiding very sensitive government decisions. No one knew about it and there were serious concerns given the kind of work she’d been doing.” Her role included giving advice on public appointments, including potential conflicts of interest, and setting up independent panels to interview subjects.”  (paywalled link)

If you believe that a mandarin, so wedded to Labour policies that she became one of their top advisers, would be utterly unbiased when giving advice on who might be a ‘good candidate’ – well, there’s this London Bridge for sale …

Remember the famous ‘Code of Conduct’ for civil serpents? Remember how Raab was labelled a ‘bully’ and abusing his power when he reminded his serpents of it? Well now, see this:

“The code also stipulates that “contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…ministers”. It has been reported that Ms Gray will be found in breach of both clauses as she held talks with Labour, which she did not declare, while advising ministers on sensitive business.” (paywalled link)

One wonders how many other mandarins and top serpents have been and are disregarding yon Code of Conduct, not least in order to polish their credentials for a Starmer premiership. 

I was not disappointed to find that The Times, having helped certain mandarins to get rid of Raab, is now spearheading the campaign to ‘get rid of Case’ – that’s Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, there’s this:

“Simon Case should resign as cabinet secretary because the civil service has “never been weaker, more demoralised or less powerfully led”, Britain’s leading political historian has said. Sir Anthony Seldon, who has written studies of every prime minister since John Major, said that Case no longer had “the authority or experience” to renew the civil service after a tumultuous period.” (link, paywalled)

How someone can ‘no longer have the experience’ after a few years in his job – dunno. It’s surely incontrovertible though if the ‘leading political historian’ says so. This report, peppered with quotes from Seldon’s book, also has lots of observations from anonymous “Whitehall sources” which indeed paint a picture of ‘crisis’ – but not in the way they and Remain Central thinks. Read carefully, keeping in mind the quote from the DT above:

“[Case] has also become embroiled in the row over Sue Gray, who after a Whitehall investigation is set to be accused of breaking the civil service code by holding talks with Labour about becoming Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. Critics say that Case has been pursuing a vendetta against his former colleague.” (link, paywalled)

Isn’t it his job to be ‘embroiled’ in this scandal? And: what vendetta? Ought Gray’s violation of the Code of Conduct be disregarded because it may inconvenience Starmer? The ‘interpretation’, a.k.a. ‘muddying the waters’ by another “Whitehall source’ is breathtaking:

“One Whitehall source claimed that Case had “seized on Sue because his position is so weak and he knows how angry ministers are about it”. Another said: “It is not the job of the cabinet secretary to try and impose bans on officials going to work for political parties. It has happened in the past without controversy.” (link, paywalled)

Ah – but she had secretly worked with Starmer already, dear ‘source’, hadn’t she! So that’s ok then, is it? Can we also infer that other mandarins have secretly ‘worked’ for political parties or are still doing so? That’s not all – this quote from Seldon’s book had me speechless:

“Case, having never run a government department, became cabinet secretary after a series of leading permanent secretaries said they did not want to take the job while Dominic Cummings was in place as Johnson’s chief adviser. Case was encouraged to apply by Johnson and imposed a series of conditions including stopping Sir Tom Scholar, then the permanent secretary to the Treasury, from being sacked.” (link, paywalled)

So all the top mandarins who are now coming out of hiding were frit of taking on this post “because: Dominic Cummings”? Was Mr Case the unwitting sacrifice for yon top mandarins who are now sacrificing him because there’s no Cummings to content with?

I also note with interest that apparently the Treasury mandarin, Sir Tom Scholar, was already under suspicion by the Johnson government but was only sacked by Truss. I wish someone would dig into this mess, to get to the whys and wherefores.

The Times then presents a slew of anonymous sources who bemoan that Case ‘didn’t stand up for them’. When? Why? Who? Are there more Ms Grays? And so we get to the real reason for this anti-Case campaign:

“Another Whitehall source said it had reached the point where it would be “less damaging” for the civil service for Case to leave. “A fresh start could be best for the overall governance of the UK and the civil service, someone who can steady the ship and have the confidence of the ministerial team and permanent secretaries,” they said.” (link, paywalled)

It looks to me as if these ‘Whitehall sources’ are doing their utmost to make Whitehall ‘Labour-ready’. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that they themselves are doing more damage to the Civil Service than Mr Case possibly could, nor that this damage is already done by their refusal to take on Case’s job while Mr Cummings was in No 10.

Shouldn’t they have had the ‘courage’ to try and get someone in who could have stood up against Mr D.C.? Perhaps their snowflakey egos couldn’t bear the intellectual pressure produced by Mr D.C.? Perhaps they actually do lack the intelligence Mr D.C. expected?

I leave you with ‘news’ about a really important event in New York. Both the DT and The Times have wasted acres of pixels on it, and so has the DM (link, if you cannot resist) which had it as their leading article at the time of writing: the Met Gala 2023, with the ‘best dressed stars’. Gawd, I’m getting old: not only do I not know who most of these ‘stars’ are, I find the dresses too ugly for words.

That’s all I have for today. I’m always delighted to see the unholy, incestuous ‘alliance’ between mandarins and Westminster newsrooms ‘at work’, incriminating themselves through their own blabbermouths – anonymously, of course. Have a good day.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email