Mandarins are forevah … for evah … for evah ..
The ‘News’ first: I understand from this morning’s papers that yesterday’s ‘general alarm’ was a flop, simply because there’s no mention of it in any of the front pages, a small notice in the DT excepted. Here’s the Beeb’s ‘staff’ headline: “Newspaper headlines: Labour racism row and Britons rescued from Sudan”(link).
And so to the Tolley Report Pt II, dealing separately with the FCDO complaint since it’s a valuable ‘case study’ in how the mandarins will always win. Read Pt I here, and look at this cartoon in yesterday’s Sunday Times which illustrates their victory perfectly.
The important item in this complaint is the question if his mandarins had informed Mr Raab about his behaviour. Mr Raab said they didn’t while they claim they had (all emphases are mine):
“[…] there was a factual dispute as to whether, following a particular meeting at which the DPM referred, in the context of the work of the civil servants present, to the question of their compliance with the Civil Service Code, Sir Philip (the Permanent Secretary) communicated to the DPM that he should not do this. The DPM denied that there had been any such communication. […] The DPM also questioned why there were no minutes of the discussion.” (link)
No minutes then. It’s one word against the other … One wonders how firm and explicit Sir Philip was in 2019 if this had no impact on Mr Raab’s recollection. As we all know, ‘recollections may vary’, but never mind: Mr Tolley had already decided whom to believe:
“Sir Philip’s evidence was convincing and I do not think that he had any good reason to make up such a conversation with a view to protecting himself after the event. None of the details of the FCDO Complaint has been the subject of media reporting and there would therefore have been no reason for Sir Philip to react defensively. Contrary to the DPM’s assertion, I did not regard it as plausible that the meeting should have been minuted […].” (link)
That, in essence, is how Whitehall mandarins managed to get rid of Mr Raab: minutes are unnecessary. Sir Philip’s ‘evidence was convincing’ because, as an ever so unbiased mandarin, he had no axe to grind, especially since the MSM hadn’t reported on this issue. In contrast, Mr Raab’s words were deemed to be unconvincing, not least because, the horror, he was defending himself!
Mr Tolley saw fit to write this introductory paragraph for the chapter dealing with the FCDO complaint: “The circumstances of the FCDO Complaint are such that very few details can be included in the report without involving a breach of confidentiality.” (link). This ‘confidentiality’ went out of the window as far as our esteemed MSM were concerned.
The DT ‘outed’ the person in question who had been so intimidated by Raab: the then ambassador to Spain, Mr Elliot, who still is ambassador in Madrid. Raab’s point was that Mr Elliot proposed to station Spanish police in Gibraltar, to help with border-crossing issues in the wake of Brexit. The DT wrote:
“Mr Elliott’s first-hand account is not in the public domain, meaning his side of the story is unclear. He was approached for comment via the Foreign Office – he remains the UK ambassador to Spain – but none was issued. The Foreign Office declined to comment.” (paywalled link)
No comment? Perhaps Mr Elliot has forgotten what this was about? Next, we were treated to a ‘denial’ in the Sunday DT, written up by the foremost Remain journalist, Mr Crisp. Note the words used in the headline: “Gibraltar’s leader rubbishes Dominic Raab’s claims of secret plot for Spanish boots on ground” (paywalled link) – a nice deflection from the real issue.
There was no ‘plot’ and the complaint wasn’t about Brexit and Brexit policies: that would have been uncouth and would have strengthened Mr Raab’s position. Far more elegantly, it was about bureaucratic ‘procedures’, the core being that Mr Raab mentioned the ‘Civil Service Code’ which the FCDO serpents, here the ambassador, ‘felt’ to be ‘intimidating’:
“[Raab’s] conduct was bound to be experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, and it was so experienced. I infer that the DPM must have been aware of this effect; at the very least, he ought reasonably to have been so aware. In addition, on a separate but closely related occasion concerned with the same subject- matter, the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach of the Civil Service Code (and so would have been in breach of their contracts of employment). This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual (a different person from the individual who made the FCDO Complaint), who took it seriously ” (link)
Good Lord! After extricating myself from the legalese I find that there was someone else who was not involved in this particular complaint but also felt ‘intimidated’? So intimidated that no complaint was made at the time? Did they even come forward after Mr Tolley’s appeal in the MSM for ‘more witnesses’ or is this just ‘a recollection’ by yon mandarin?
Can we ask – since Mr Tolley didn’t – why Sir Philip didn’t do more than basically tell his minister that mentioning yon ‘Civil Service Code’ was not pukka? Why, if this was so important, were there no minutes or a private note ‘for the files’? The DoJ mandarin managed that …I’m in awe of Sir Philip’s ‘recollections’! Next, the concluding remarks on the FCDO Complaint:
“(a) The DPM made a legitimate management choice, on the basis of his genuine, adverse view about the work of others (albeit without any grounds for disciplinary action).” (link)
If Mr Raab’s ‘management choice’ was legitimate – why complain now, years later, making it an issue? Next:
“(b) In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. […]” (link)
So the issue is not the legitimacy but the ‘felt’ intimidating, humiliating way in which the DPM acted? Insisting on serpents following the government’s policy is an ‘abuse’ or misuse of power’? How … interesting! Finally there’s this:
“(c) On a separate occasion, the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual who took it seriously. The DPM’s conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He did not target any individual, nor intend to threaten anyone with disciplinary action. […]” (link)
There was no intention, no individual was targeted, no ‘disciplinary action was taken – but someone ‘felt’ threatened, and that’s that. Mr Tolley bent over backwards by pointing out that ‘bullying’ was never mentioned, only ‘intimidating’. Can we say that the mandarins were truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to get rid of Mr Raab? Can we say that Whitehall is indeed out of control?
I’ll finish with quotes from Dominic Raab’s article in the DT. He points out that he’d been vetted four times by the Cabinet Office Director of Propriety and Ethics which vets newly appointed ministers. He was given ‘a clean bill of health’ in each case which wouldn’t have happened “if there were credible concerns about my conduct.” (paywalled link).
Far be it from me to suggest that the ‘Cabinet Office Director of Propriety and Ethics’ didn’t do their job properly, on four separate occasions! Now see this:
“[…] I made changes to the personnel conducting the Brexit negotiations on Gibraltar with Spain, having found out a senior negotiator had gone beyond the democratic mandate set by Cabinet, putting UK sovereignty at risk. The change involved no demotion or longer-term detriment. It was essential to securing a deal with Spain at 1am on New Year’s Eve 2020 – a week after the main UK-EU Free Trade deal was done – and perilously close to a “no deal” for Gibraltar. […] No-one at the time raised my conduct from the meeting, and no complaint was made until two and a half years later.” (paywalled link)
Mandarins, especially Remain mandarins, play for keeps. They have the huge apparatus of their ministries at hand to find suitable ‘instances’, even after years, with which to remove an unloved minister. One might ask: what do they have to hide that they wanted to get rid of Raab now?
That’s all I have for today. ‘Tis time to recognise that Whitehall serves itself, not their ministers and not this country or us taxpayers. Have a good day.
Our wonderful gold plated Civil Service, and the world is flat’
I have more pressing things (like winning an election) than to follow the minutiae of this miscarriage of justice. However – did I hear correctly that there was no evidence Mr Raab threw tomatoes?
If yes then someone lied – That someone should have been sacked immediately, not moved sideways, or, ye gads, upwards. And in a courtroom catching the prosecution or defence out telling one porky pie is enough for a competent lawyer to press home that the whole lot may be a stinking pile of lies.
Actually Helena I think you’re correct. Upwards. The Peter Principal.
Can’t help but think that the disreputable political activism of Whitehall mandarins has prospered under13 years of government by the fake Conservative Party, of which Raab is a member? Pots and Kettles!
Talking last night to our constituency Reform Party PPC for 2024. Youngish bloke, lots of energy and ideas for the campaign. So I’m biting the bullet and going to throw my lot in with them. No time to waste, doing nothing is not an option for me as 2024 will be on us before we know it.
Viv, you say the alert that we were all gonna die was a flop.
Probably still using the 1998 excel spreadsheet for processing the data.
Hope it was cheaper than the twelve thousand million pounds spent on the trace and track fiasco.
Just think what you could do with that twelve thou million; or that five thou million for dud face masks; or that 12 thou mil . . .
Our money not theirs so they don’t give a damn about squandering it.
Recollections do indeed varying and that Tolley should have made a finding of fact in favour of the Permanent Secretary is highly suspect. He dismissed other complaints as inconclusive for being undocumented and of a ‘ he said, she said’ nature too dependent on unreliable memory. But not so with the mandarin who was in effect treated as an unimpeachable witness in contrast to Raab. This was a prejudiced finding that Sunak should have challenged.
Courts of first instance, such as employment and tax tribunals and magistrates courts, are made up of panels – typically a lawyer and two lay persons – precisely because findings of fact should not be left to one person. Tribunals prefer documentary evidence. Evaluating oral testimony which relies on judgements about witnesses’ character is too prone to one individual’s blind spots. In criminal trials 12 jurors are needed to evaluate witnesses.
Tolley specialises in employment law and would know very well the need for more than one mind to be involved in making findings of fact yet he decides the mandarin is truthful and ‘finds’ as a fact that the mandarin’s account (all this time later) is what actually happened. This is classic social class bias.
KCs, mandarins, agency chairmen, and media editors all belong to the same clubs either explicitly along Pall Mall or virtually for being part of Matthew Goodwin’s ‘new elite’. Tolley should never have been allowed to make a finding of fact between a mandarin and Raab. If the permanent secretary failed to minute an alleged rebuke then too bad for the permanent secretary.
What Tolley should have said is that Sir Phillip failed to minute his alleged conversation and given the amount of time that has since passed it is not possible to adjudicate on which recollection is correct. But that would be to let down Sir Philip. That mandarins (and lawyers) can close ranks should have been a factor in Tolley’s weighing of evidence and of Sunak’s decision to accept it which he should not have done (if he had a backbone).
The culture of animosity between a predominantly reman civil service and a brexit should also have been explicitly weighed by Tolley in judging Raab. After the referendum we lived in abrasive times. Raab was not found to be guilty of any abuse. It was just our vote, our democracy that was abused. Politicians representing us were not abrasive enough.
One who certainly doesn’t look to be intimidating, never mind ‘abrasive’, is the current Foreign Sec. The fact that the top lot in the Khartoum Embassy were back in the UK when the civil war kicked off, isn’t being blamed on Cleverly shows that Sir Philip looks after his own – when they toe the line.
I keep thinking of several scenes from ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes Prime Minister’ where Sir Humphrey is meeting bankers and lawyers to exchange views which to present to the PM.
Btw – Miz Truss clearly was in the right job as F Sec: they loved her, she was so un-intimidating that she did as she was told. She should’ve stayed there
The mandarins now have ministers where they want them – walking on eggshells – which is where, one suspects, Sunak and Hunt also want them since those two are honorary members of the mandarin class.
Speaking of khartoum, according to bbc news there are perhaps 4,000 ‘British Nationals’ and their families trapped in Sudan. Who knew that?
Whitehall:
It seems we need rid of the whole stinking lot of them, or at the very least a substantial reduction in their remuneration.
Something like that Jack T. If it is anything like it used to be it is the Administrative Class of civil servants doing the mischieve. Executive officers and clerical officers just do what they are told. The Admin Class manipulate the Ministers. If we got rid of them we would save much taxpayer’s money and get a civil service that did what the government told it to do. Mind you, there is still the problem of whether the ‘government’ tells it to do what the electorate have told the government what they want.
It seems to me with only limited and very patchy experience of Whitehall. seen from the bottom up and in arguments.. That :- More light needs shining. There are too many and with little to do, of course they’re a problem Sack 9 out of ten.
As I keep saying, Computers ( In and out and roundabout and phone extensions ) breed idlers with pseudo work… All Civil Service forms involve vast amounts of repetitious data. again and again placing colossal burdens from as many sources as they can think of. It is claimed that this data is needed, but it can only be needed for none of their business.
Use of Computers ( GIGO ) has eased the burden on forms and some other. But this has only been obtained by loading it onto the customer/voter etc.
IMHO buying nowadays buying is a dismal and uncertain chore. Walking into a shop and buying something, has now gone.
All fired up by unthinking and unfortunate ignorance.
I think !