ChatterBank16 mins ago
Raab Has Resigned
Your thoughts?
https:/
(This report is a bit outdated)
https:/
(This report is a bit outdated)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// The whole nonsense from Boris 'partying' to this is manufactured tripe. //
Failing Governments quickly lose their friends. Donors, the press, pundits, all stay away because they don’t want to be seen backing a loser.
In their loneliness they start imagining conspiracies against them. They blame their mistakes and resulting unpopularity on ‘the enemy within’.
And we all know how that ends.
Failing Governments quickly lose their friends. Donors, the press, pundits, all stay away because they don’t want to be seen backing a loser.
In their loneliness they start imagining conspiracies against them. They blame their mistakes and resulting unpopularity on ‘the enemy within’.
And we all know how that ends.
// Rishi should never have accepted [Raab]'s resignation. //
What choice did he have? The report found that on two of the 18 occasions that were investigated, Raab had indeed behaved in a manner found to be bullying, and that his conduct "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates".
This whole angle some people are taking is, in effect, backwards. The function of the Civil Service as a whole is to carry out the will of the elected Government; Civil Servants are bound by this code whether or not they agree with the policy. But two things follow from this:
1. Firstly, this means that the Minister is ultimately guaranteed to get their way, and doesn't *need* to be personally intimidating, or abrasive, or to treat the Service (and those within it) as an adversary.
2. Secondly, because the first condition holds, that allows the CS, and those within it, to stay in their job independently of who is in Government. This leads to many Civil Servants, at all levels, who have a huge wealth, even decades, of experience. It would be a naive Minister who decides to ignore that experience, and the advice that follows from it. Of course, because of (1), the Minister has the freedom to reject the advice given ultimately. But, again, it's precisely because of that that there's no need to be intimidating, or abrasive, or impatient. The law, and best practice, and common sense (elected officials must ultimately "win" on policy questions), are all on their side.
No doubt you can find individual Civil Servants who forget this; but the CS as a whole knows its job, and does its job, effectively; Ministers may like to blame them repeatedly, but it's only an excuse, and a convenient one at that, to deflect blame for their bad policy decisions or poor conduct.
Anyway, the short fact is that Raab is a bad boss and has been held accountable for that. There's no conspiracy here.
What choice did he have? The report found that on two of the 18 occasions that were investigated, Raab had indeed behaved in a manner found to be bullying, and that his conduct "involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates".
This whole angle some people are taking is, in effect, backwards. The function of the Civil Service as a whole is to carry out the will of the elected Government; Civil Servants are bound by this code whether or not they agree with the policy. But two things follow from this:
1. Firstly, this means that the Minister is ultimately guaranteed to get their way, and doesn't *need* to be personally intimidating, or abrasive, or to treat the Service (and those within it) as an adversary.
2. Secondly, because the first condition holds, that allows the CS, and those within it, to stay in their job independently of who is in Government. This leads to many Civil Servants, at all levels, who have a huge wealth, even decades, of experience. It would be a naive Minister who decides to ignore that experience, and the advice that follows from it. Of course, because of (1), the Minister has the freedom to reject the advice given ultimately. But, again, it's precisely because of that that there's no need to be intimidating, or abrasive, or impatient. The law, and best practice, and common sense (elected officials must ultimately "win" on policy questions), are all on their side.
No doubt you can find individual Civil Servants who forget this; but the CS as a whole knows its job, and does its job, effectively; Ministers may like to blame them repeatedly, but it's only an excuse, and a convenient one at that, to deflect blame for their bad policy decisions or poor conduct.
Anyway, the short fact is that Raab is a bad boss and has been held accountable for that. There's no conspiracy here.
And then the final point is that the Civil Service is large -- approximately half a million of them, depending a little on how you count. That includes an approximately 30% increase since 2016: not at all by coincidence, because unsurprisingly it turns out that you need quite a lot of people to implement Brexit and handle administration/policy during the pandemic.
But in any case, in such a large section of the population you can be sure that there's a wide variety of political views. By its nature, it can be extremely difficult to pin down those views, beyond the obvious point above that there will be multiple (approximately half a million of them, in fact); and that these views themselves are in flux, both because of staff turnover and because all humans have a tendency to adapt their opinions at least partially as they age.
Again, all of this is to say that a "conspiracy to bring down the Government" is manifest nonsense, and a weird excuse to avoid holding politicians accountable for their behaviour and conduct. No doubt the Civil Service itself has problems, such as being too London-centric particularly at the senior levels. But as a general principle if the choice is between a handful of people being bad at management and half a million conspiring to bring down the Government, then maybe it's the small handful who are the problem.
https:/
https:/
But in any case, in such a large section of the population you can be sure that there's a wide variety of political views. By its nature, it can be extremely difficult to pin down those views, beyond the obvious point above that there will be multiple (approximately half a million of them, in fact); and that these views themselves are in flux, both because of staff turnover and because all humans have a tendency to adapt their opinions at least partially as they age.
Again, all of this is to say that a "conspiracy to bring down the Government" is manifest nonsense, and a weird excuse to avoid holding politicians accountable for their behaviour and conduct. No doubt the Civil Service itself has problems, such as being too London-centric particularly at the senior levels. But as a general principle if the choice is between a handful of people being bad at management and half a million conspiring to bring down the Government, then maybe it's the small handful who are the problem.
https:/
https:/
Also, of course, the criteria by which someone is appointed as a Minister are not whether they are good in a managerial role, nor even whether they have any experience in the relevant Department; it's a political appointment, which may be affected by questions of loyalty to the Prime Minister (either because they are friends, or because they represent a wing of the party, etc). Ministers so appointed are obviously not inherently bad, but it stands to reason that if the question is primarily not about how impressive you are at administrative leadership, then on occasion they will turn out to be not very good at it. The skill sets for being a successful politician, and for being a successful minister, only partly overlap.
i am interested in this conspiracy theory that civil servants are plotting to take down the government and are doing so by… erm… going incredibly slowly after dominic raab
what is the end goal of this conspiracy? once the government is toppled, what’s their next move? seeing is proof is surplus to requirements what does “common sense” tell us about these questions?
what is the end goal of this conspiracy? once the government is toppled, what’s their next move? seeing is proof is surplus to requirements what does “common sense” tell us about these questions?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.