The Tolley Report: the revenge of Remain Whitehall
The best-laid plans of mouse and man … well, I had planned a review of Matt Goodwin’s extraordinary series of essays on the state of our country, but alas … the Raab scandal isn’t over and our beloved Westminster MSM show by their front page headlines how much they were complicit. The compilation of this morning’s print editions’ front pages by the Beeb’s ‘staff’ is already sufficient: ‘Newspaper headlines: ‘Raab quits in fury’ and ‘tone-deaf resignation’ (link).
It won’t surprise you to see that it’s the grauniad whose front page was given pride of place by the Beeb, having ‘fury’ in their headline. Using ‘fury’ implies that yes, Raab was an irascible bully and needed to go. As for the ‘tone-deaf’ headline by ‘iNews’: blimey! It seems that getting a man sacked isn’t enough, he also must apologise for this!
Other headlines are clearly selective in their reporting, e.g. the DT, asserting that “Dominic Raab sunk by row over Spanish forces in Gibraltar” (paywalled link). Rounding up ‘what the papers say’, The Times smugly manages to get a final smear into their headline: “Seething Dominic Raab felt ‘forced out’ after vowing to fight on” (link, paywalled). This goes to show how right those complaining civil serpents and by extension The Times were which spearheaded the anti-Raab MSM cabal.
And so to the actual report by Adam Tolley KC. I am using the official text published on the government site here. It is 48 pages long, so in this Part I’ll look at the MoJ stuff. There is a lot of legalese waffle in it which I’ll leave out. Points 2 and 3 from the introductory overview however indicate both how utterly hair-raising the basis for this investigation was, and how Mr Tolley is trying very hard to preserve an impression of being impartial:
“The investigation was conducted on the basis of the confidentiality of the identity of those who participated as witnesses. As a result, it has been possible only to include the most general reference to the factual detail in order to avoid identification or the risk of identification.” (link)
Long live ‘confidentiality’ which disallows the person accused of properly defending himself … Next, Mr Tolley explains the timeline of complaints he received after his investigation was set up last November and which he announced in the MSM. He received 44 extra ‘written’ statements in addition to the original group of MoJ complainants.
These included the ones from the former Brexit Dept and the FO which, according to the DT, ‘sunk’ Mr Raab. I recall the articles especially in The Times surreptitiously appealing for more ‘bullied’ serpents to come forward. The last one apparently did so on the 13th of December 2022, a month after the original start.
I can’t help feeling that Mr Tolley must already have known at that time that the original complaints were nothing-burgers and thus trawled for ‘moar evidence’. He writes:
“There are therefore eight formal complaints within the Terms of Reference: (1) the MoJ Group Complaint; (2) the FCDO Complaint; (3) the DExEU Complaint; and (4)-(8) the MoJ Additional Complaints. Any other number in this respect which appeared in media reporting was not correct.” (link)
After lengthy explanations of the ‘Ministerial Code of Conduct’ and the ‘Civil Service Code of Conduct’, Mr Tolley emphasises again the need for ‘confidentiality’ and explains that he “avoided the inclusion of any details which would enable such identification.” (link). He only names two mandarins: Ms Romeo of the MoJ and the FO Mandarin, Sir Philip Barton because of their ‘important’ submissions.
I’ll look at the MoJ complaints first because they started the snowballing ‘complaints’ with other departments jumping onto the bandwagon, even though their ‘complaints’ should have been disregarded because they go back years and thus were beyond the time limit allowed for complaints to be made.
Can we speak of a pronounced, concerted witch hunt? Of serpents trawling through years of Mr Raab’s work as minister in the hope of finding something, anything, to use? I think we can, especially when we read that the complaint from the Brexit Dept was brought forward on the 24th of November, after the terms of reference had already been agreed with the PM.
And so to the MoJ complaints. Mr Tolley reports that there was a ‘group complaint’ in the MoJ in early March 2022, but that (emphases are mine):
“It was not treated as having been made pursuant to any particular procedure. […] The MoJ Group Complaint was not put to the DPM in March 2022 and there is no evidence to suggest that he was shown a copy of it. It was released to the media and many of the allegations were made public in November 2022.” (link)
So official steps weren’t taken at that time? Why not? Did the mandarin, Ms Romeo, assume then this was not important? She spoke to Mr Raab on two occasions. apparently all she told him was to come to her when he had issues with his serpents … Next, see this, but first put down any implements you might be tempted to throw:
“The MoJ Group Complaint was prepared by a group of non-SCS policy officials and is signed collectively. It was the product of discussions within an informal network of civil servants whose number is uncertain. For the purpose of the investigation, nine individuals identified themselves as parties to the MoJ Group Complain. Only some of those individuals had any direct experience of the DPM; some had never met him at all but were seeking to support their colleagues. Each individual was entirely open about what they could or could not say. The substantive content of the MoJ Group Complaint is therefore limited but it paved the way for the MoJ Additional Complaints and so too, albeit indirectly, the FCDO Complaint and the DExEU Complaint.” (link)
If a veiled appeal in the MSM is deemed to be ‘indirect’ … Next, Mr Tolley explains more regarding this MoJ Group complaint. His description of how these came about is significant because it paves the way for other such complaints by serpents who want to get rid of their minister even though he rejected them in the end:
“However, the composition and content of the MoJ Group Complaint make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct. In particular:
(1) It was the product of discussions, involving a large number of individuals, over an extended period in February and March 2022.
(2) It was drafted by ‘committee’, with multiple contributors.
(3) It is focused only to a limited extent on the DPM himself, with references also to Ministers (plural) and other civil servants.
(4) It uses the language of a “perverse culture of fear” without a clear explanation of what it is said to mean. I received different explanations from different individuals.
(5) It refers to a significant extent to material in relation to effects on colleagues about which none of the interviewees in respect of the MoJ Group Complaint knew anything specific.
(6) It made allegations about unreasonable work deadlines which were not persuasively instantiated by any witness.” (link)
Words simply fail me! It seems to me that the points made above ought to have put paid to starting the ‘inquiry’ in the first place. Since when is it acceptable to accuse a person and destroy him, based on the majority decision by a committee of anonymous complainants? Are we seeing shades of the Maoist Cultural Revolution arising?
In the end, Mr Tolley rejected these complaints in his conclusion. There’s one interesting point made by the complainants once the inquiry was made ‘official’: Mr Raab changed his behaviour once he became aware of the complaints. This begs the question: why wasn’t he told properly, in March 2022? Did his mandarin, Ms Romeo, actually make him fully aware, or did she just say, on two occasions, that some serpents were a bit unhappy, and never mind …?
The case of the FO complaint is interesting because this seems to’ve been one reason Raab resigned. I shall go into details in Pt II but observe here that the FO only ‘complained’ after the investigation had been set up, the references published. It was about a Brexit issue, not about the Afghan debacle where the MSM were full of screams that he was ‘on holidays’ when it kicked off.
I suggest that this provides yet another instance of Whitehall being fully ‘Remain’ and paving the way to their support for a Labour Rejoin effort. Furthermore, I suggest that the ‘committee of complainants’ convened because of another Brexit-related issue:
“The DPM’s policy priorities included the Bill of Rights and reform of the parole system. The DPM perceived what he described as ‘cultural resistance’ to these, amongst other, policies. This perception was regarded by the civil servants concerned as highly contentious and was emphatically rejected by many, […]” (link)
I leave the complaints by the band-waggon jumpers from the Brexit Department and from the FO for Pt II but shall say here already that they substantiate my assessment of this whole thing having been a witch hunt, using old claims by Remainers as ‘warning’ to other ministers pursuing policies related to Brexit.
That’s all I have for today. This Part and Part II (coming on Monday) form a much needed background on which to review the Goodwin essays next week. Have a good weekend.
Interesting few days which illustrate the lenghts to which management by common purpose and mindfulness training has affected the every day workings of the public sector and to a large extent the corporate sector. Even more interesting is why there has been no attempt by the ‘right’ to counter this assult, much of which has been driven by H.R deparments . Nothing much will change until it becomes obvious to many that there is a difference between what must be done, what should be done and what could be done . Until that happens the decline will continue.
The revenge of Whitehall for Brexit it may be but let’s not fool ourselves – the ranks of the Tory Party are littered with MPs that go along with the Whitehall mandarins, globalist, WEF, WHO, big government agenda.
It is difficult to feel any sympathy for Raab even though we know he is the subject of a witch hunt.
He would though have my full support (and a goodly percentage of the country) if he left the Tory Party and became the first Reform Party UK MP. Other Tory MPs with slim majorities may join him for the 2024 GE which would have the potential of the destruction of the fake Tory Party. From that, conservatism could finally have a chance to rise Phoenix-like from its ashes.
Am I right? So being told to implement government policy (their job), and that their work was not good enough, is now bullying, and by majority decision they can apparently refuse to do as they are instructed. Just who are the bullies here? Projection?
Great analysis, Viv. Many thanks.
Great analysis, Viv. Many thanks.
Seconded. Good to see one or two mandarins named and shamed.
Jonathan Haidt’s critique of education in the US identified how a generation has been brought up to confuse feelings for reality. The elevation of feeling over reason, the displacement of objectivity by subjectivity, inevitably came to the UK and under the Macpherson report became codified dogma and fuel for identity politics. The civil service code, provided for by section 5 of The Constitutional and Governance Act 2010, was a lame attempt to constrain the degradation of principles that once underpinned the civil service and, for a time. were matters of pride. Now, civil servants have to be reminded that they are supposed to be impartial and serve government faithfully no matter its political position. Yet, impartiality is now a very elastic concept and the culture still is that feelings are reality – and that is a description of the current generation of mandarins (who let Stonewall in)..
Thisis mirrored in the current crop of conservative MPs most of whom appear to be closet Lib Dems. Even the few who seem to be vaguely conservative still – Badenock, Braverman, Rees-Mogg et al – are completely clueless as to how to change the culture. A dozen or so of them support Raab and see the implications of the precedent now set over bullying Raab out of his post by civil servants and a colluding media, but they have no solution. Even Matthew Parris thinks Raab was hard done by with an article in The Times saying so which is perhaps the most astonishing thing I have come across in this sorry saga.
On Thursday night I was at a dinner with Badenock as guest speaker. It was under Chatham House rules and so I cannot quote her. I will just say that she is not the anti-woke culture warrior who will save conservatism that people think she is. Her vision of the future of conservatism is very different from Lord Frost’s. Thatcher, to get her vision promulgated, had to purge the cabinet of ‘wets’. The equivalent today is not happening and will not be happening. The blob, in its international dimension, got rid of Truss and Kwarteng and give us Hunt and Sunak. Changing society at a domestic level is probably a forlorn task.
There is a ‘blob’, described by Matthew Goodwin in his new book, and they really are in charge. Remember, the conclusion to Orwell’s 1984, is that resistance is futile. Room 101 probably awaits us all one way or another. The capture of education by the left, mass immigration and multi-culturalism undermining trust and social cohesion, are a context in which resistance is increasingly difficult if not impossible. The number of people here who do not share our history and national allegiance has probably passed a critical mass already.
The turning points, that began with the marginalisation of Enoch Powell, keep coming. They all go one way. Brexit and Trump caught out the (international) blob. They will not be caught out a third time. Raab is a minor event is al this but an example nonetheless. Braverman better be looking over her shoulder.
I’m glad you point to Enoch Powell’s marginalisation as a turning point. I’ve long thought that this was the first ‘victory’ of what is now The Blob. We also ought to be aware that Blair wrapped himself in Thatcher’s mantle, declaring himself and New Labour as inheritors of her policies. Behind that cloak he started on the demolition job of our country, followed faithfully by Cameron who saw himself as ‘heir to Blair’.
Involuntarily, the Tolley Report throws a light on the reign of The Blob which will welcome Labour with open arms in the hope of rolling back Brexit.
Parris’ commentary astonished me – he seems to have grasped what this unspeakable performance really was about.
Parris made an interesting point at the end of this article.
“There’s something of Salem Massachusetts about it: ….the law doesn’t (or didn’t used to) decide whether someone was a thief: it decided whether they had stolen something.
….it is enough, according to a 2021 Court of Appeal decision (in the case of Peter Chilvers) for each juror to take his or her own path, through a slew of allegations, to the overall conclusion that that is the kind of person you are. Not what you did. What you are.”
This infection of replacing what you did with what you (allegedly) are has infected the courts which in turn reinforce its infection of society. We had an example with Helena Windsor insisting that Vachha was removed unconstitutionally. When challenged for evidence of what was actually done nothing was forthcoming; “I don’t believe – I know”. Just assertion without evidence of what UKIP’s NEC somehow are. (May be they are something but genuine evidence is needed for me to ever agree).
To persuade another of what you believe you need to supply reasons for them to believe what you do. For now, at least, it is not enough for a policeman to say “I know” in court. They have to provide evidence of what was done.