Priti Patel: resisting the Deep State. Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images
The big news emerging from the Priti Patel bullying debate is this: there is now a double standard on double standards. Many of the Home Secretary’s allies have been pointing out that, when John Bercow was accused of bullying, he was kept in his job by a coalition of Remainers who thought he would help them stop Brexit. At the time, Brexiteers thought Bercow’s behaviour was grounds for sacking, and that Bercow’s backers were reprehensible. Now they say the Bercow-backing is a great precedent for Patel-protecting. Bercow-backing is simultaneously behaviour they abhor and choose to emulate.
The message is simple: My side is allowed to have double standards. My opponents are not.
This level of political and intellectual contortion may be entertaining to watch, but it has serious implications. Slowly and steadily the party activists and ministers who peddle this line are contorting the very concept of political independence out of existence. Alex Allan, who wrote the report into Priti Patel’s behaviour, was known as the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. His departure suggests there is no place for independence in this Number 10.
We have reached a level of partisanship in our politics that makes it truly hard for many of our political leaders to even conceptualise what it might mean to be independent. It’s the politics of medieval warlords: unless you are on our side, you must be our sworn enemy. And while it is the Right putting this into practice, it is the Left which has created an entire intellectual architecture for this mode of thinking in the shape of critical theory. When deployed in the service of political movements, it means: you’re a trans ally or a transphobe, you’re an Anti Racist or you’re a racist, you believe in Modern Monetary Theory or you’re a neoliberal capitalist sellout.
It is astonishing to me to see formerly serious, sensible Conservatives getting sucked into this vortex, and yet in defence of Priti Patel they have. She only shouted at civil servants in the first place because they refused to do her bidding as part of a deep state conspiracy against Brexit, apparently. Alex Allan’s report is not independent, it’s a continued effort in the war against Brexit: senior civil servants trying to take down a popular minister securing a popular agenda.
This is what these Priti-protectors want us to believe: there is a Deep State. It is against Brexit. Civil servants are strongly against doing popular policies because they want to be despised. Civil servants who work in the Home Office, dedicating their lives to policing and security, are firmly opposed to Priti Patel’s agenda to increase policing and tighten security law. The Deep State has decided, at the eleventh hour, to make a final attempt to sabotage Brexit by trying to remove a Minister (who has very little to do with Brexit), while leaving the Prime Minister (who led the Brexit campaign) well alone.
It reminds me of the old Sherlock Holmes adage: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth.” Flip it around: to convince yourself that something implausible is true, you have to first convince yourself that the more plausible alternatives are, in fact, impossible. That’s the magic trick partisanship has pulled off.
It has made it feel literally impossible to believe that Alex Allan is a genuinely independent mind, giving an unbiased opinion. It is impossible to believe that a civil servant who messes up or gets confused or makes a mistake is just a bit useless. And even more impossible to believe that a civil servant who says a policy won’t work is giving accurate, independent advice, instead of pursuing a partisan agenda.
There are some civil servants who don’t particularly like this government: of course. But they don’t stay to sabotage. If they really care, but don’t want to lose the pension, they disappear from the centre and trot off to work on eggs policy or widget regulation for a few years. The vast majority just carry on, and they take their job as loyal servants to their minister extremely seriously. I know this because I worked in a government — the coalition — where there was a Deputy Prime Minister whose very job description included “stopping the Prime Minister and his Cabinet from doing stuff we disagree with”.
That coalition did many things that the Deep State is supposedly against, and for once it had a democratically legitimate ally right in the heart of Whitehall. If the Deep State existed, it would have leveraged us. And yet in five years, our overwhelming experience in engaging with departments was their utter loyalty to their minister, and their minister’s choices, however loopy. In five years there was literally one occasion when we received covert information from a department: from a very junior civil servant who happened to be friends with someone in the DPM’s office. It wasn’t even very useful.
Our civil service is not perfect, but it is independent of politics and loyal to the government of the day. But it isn’t enough for me to believe that. It needs to be believed by ministers, by Parliament, and by the public too. Independence that used to be held up as one of the great accomplishments of the British state but now it is viewed with scepticism by partisans who believe we must all take sides. Partisans who cannot comprehend how to not take sides, or believe failing to do so is collaborating with the enemy. Partisans who say they would never be friends with an MP on the Conservative benches, or believe going on a Pride march is equivalent to trying to overthrow the government.
Independence used to be an aspirational word: while it was never a roaring commercial success, the Independent newspaper captured the spirit of what it meant to be independent: free from fear or favour. The fortunes of the concept have been mirrored by the publication: now it only exists online and it no longer has an independent agenda but mostly parrots the platitudes of the new Left.
We need to fight back against the idea that independence is mindlessness. It is, in fact, the only way to be open minded. Partisans hate to be reminded of the evidence, chronicled in The Political Brain, that taking a political side alters your brain so that you respond emotionally, instead of logically, to facts. To remain independent is to remain flexible, to be free to respond to new evidence and new ideas.
The real danger to the good governance of the nation is not too many independent civil servants, or some imagined Deep State. It is those who have taken sides, closed their minds, and granted themselves the freedom to make, with impunity, the mistakes for which they want their enemies punished.
Polly Mackenzie is Director of Demos, a leading cross-party think tank. She served as Director of Policy to the Deputy Prime Minister from 2010-2015.
pollymackenzie 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou are a Cabinet Minister asking your top civil servant to carry out Government policy. He earns twice as much as you do, with a huge gold plated pension, and knows he is unsackable. He gives that familiar little smile which you both know means that he has not the slightest intention of doing as you ask and there is nothing you can do about it..
If other Ministers are confirming that you have the right to give him a verbal kicking, then good. If Alex Allan says you don’t, and throws his toys out of the pram when his insistence that you must be sacked is ignored, too bad.
Where is the evidence that the Civil Service has failed to execute the orders from the elected politicians?
So why do the Civil Service hide the pensions debts, PFI, nuclear clean up, the EU etc debts off the accounts?
All that is public information.
PFI is public information! It is so public that is future payments are part of your national debt!
How many people out there would truly understand (do you – I am mean really understand) a DCF model?
I do. If you want to set one up quickly Microsoft Excel will help you.
Exactly.
If you’re in politics for the money, you don’t get it from the salary.
Comparing Priti Patel to John Bercow is absurd. Bercow was chosen (in a completely cynical, underhanded way) for a position defined at its core by being apolitical. And then he chose to perform that role in a completely political manner. Patel is an elected politician who, by definition, is political.
Your comment is absurd!Bercow was elected by the MPs; how he performed the role had nothing to do with bullying accusations against him, or the Priti investigation.
I’m sorry, but the moment you start defending Bercow on any level you are lost, utterly lost.
I did not!
I simply pointed out that his election or his Brexit policy had nothing do with bullying accusation against him .
Either Bercow did it or he did not. And if people that wanted Bercow to go because he was a bully (a principled position) can not turn around and ignore the accusations against Priti.
Many commentators here (including Andrew Harvey) are playing the man and not the ball.
Where is the report on Bercow?
I don’t know. Who has it?
Publish it.
There isn’t one, the parliamentary standards committee (majority Conservative at the time) decided that there wasn’t grounds for an investigation. The only members pushing for an investigation were remainers interestingly, and a Brexiter effectively had the deciding vote and chose not to investigate Bercow.
Reading the comments here and the article itself, you’d think it was the other way around, wouldn’t you?
Different situation as someone pointed out earlier.
No it is not. The issue was and is about bullying and the hypocrisy of different parties on the issue.
Both Bercow and Patel are bullies because they are pygmies. They suffer from a persecution complex, (because of their minuscule stature), as we used to say.
Many Jack Russell terriers have similar problem.
If you prefer “silent but deadly”, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is one of the best.
I find the SBT not very good looking dogs. Personally I do prefer the dogs used to protect sheep against wolves and bears.
But i do love the bully, pygmies thing.
You are not confusing the SBT with either the English Bull Terrier, Old English Bulldog or even worse the French Bulldog are you? All three are aesthetically challenged as you might say, while many SBT’s are deceptively attractive.
However you are right, the SBT has only one real role, Gladiator, which only ‘nutters’ such as myself find attractive.
A really useful dog which protects sheep or savages insurgents is to be preferred. My favourites are the Turkish Kangal, the Belgium Malinois, and the Australian (really American) Shepherd. The last often have one blue eye and one brown!
We Americans call it pitbull.
Thanks to the Dangerous Dogs Act, there is now a clear distinction between the American Pitbull (AP) and the SBT, in the UK.
As you probably know the AP is taller, larger version of the SBT. These characteristics make it good for the anti-personnel role, but poor for dog fighting. Thus it is currently banned in the UK, whilst the SBT roams free, and is sometimes referred to as the ‘Nanny Dog’, such is its affection for that species of African Ape, we call Human beings.
One other ‘defence/attack’ dog I forgot to mention is the almost matchless Dobermann Pinscher, a real beast, that also looks the part, and can be taught to operate in silence, which is very useful.
I do like Rotties. A neighbor of mine in NYC had one, but he was just a big baby. He was sometimes being attacked and wouldn’t fight back.
Yes a fine dog. They were originally used to pull milk carts through the narrow medieval streets of many German cities.
However ‘Bomber’ Harris and Curtis E LeMay put pay to all that.
Patel is a clear sociopath. How anyone can take one look at her and not see that is beyond me.
Yes, there is some truth in that, but perhaps that is not such a bad thing in these chaotic times?
I must say whoever picks the caption photographs for UnHerd has been doing a brilliant job recently don’t you think?
Sorry Jeremy,
The position of the speaker is meant to be neutral.
The bullying allegations were downplayed because Bercow was a remainer, it was another cynical attempt by MPs to thwart the result of the referendum
“The bullying allegations were downplayed because Bercow was a remainer” – OK you are correct
How is that related to Priti being a bully or not?
Either you oppose bullying on principle or you don’t. So do you?
I agree. The speaker was supposed to be unbiased but Bercow was as biased as they come. Priti Patel is good politician. I suspect Remainers were trying to find something to unseat her. Thatcher was accused of being a bully but was the best PM we have had since Churchill in my opinion. The civil service is supposed to work for the government and the real problem is that they have created their own power base and drag their feet on carrying out the governments objectives when they disagree with them (or call their superiors bullies).
Bang on.
Spirited defence of the man in Whitehall. But the man in Whitehall has his own agenda from the very way he was educated, trained, and the way in which he rose to the senior jobs. That agenda does not go down well with those who wish to change the consensus; the civil service has subtle ways of preventing or slowing that change. Hence conflict, which some ministers are better at managing than others. Michael Gove carried many of his initially reluctant team along by his sheer enthusiasm and the intellectual conviction of his arguments. Ms Patel shouted at her team when they would not bend to her will. Alright, it’s rude to shout, inconsiderate to expect people to work beyond their contractual hours or at weekends. But if you have a senior job, that’s life and it’s what you are paid for. My career had nice bosses and rude ones, but I just got on with it.
If your boss shouts and you are a senior employee that may feel childish, but either go and do something else, or grin and bear it – and recognise that if she is shouting you probably ain’t doing something right. And grow up. If you have knighted by HM you shouldn’t take to weeping if you’ve been shouted at. What a bunch of (highly manipulative) cissies.
Presumably the BAME, 5’3″ Female Priti Patel had to stand on a box to ‘bully’ the male, pale and stale £174,000 a year Civil Servant who, I’m guessing didn’t like being told to actually deliver something and, to implement performance reviews and to roster working weekends by a women. Has this got anything to do with her being a Tory??…. imagine the same situation if she was Labour I’m guessing, that the Civil Servant would have dumped for be ‘undermining and racist behaviour’.
Workplace bullying’s got nothing to do with size or skin colour and you know it. A twisted mind is all it takes in the modern office environment. Labour probably would have sacked him but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Or more importantly, if a Senior civil servant can’t say “please don’t shout or swear” to a minister what do they do when faced with a genuinely scary situation?
What does it take to make them act (when even when acting is as simple as expressing displeasure at behaviour).
Err-hello. Sir Philip Rutnam asked her a number of times not to bully staff, but she did not. I guess he did not make this up?
If he’d done what he was being paid to do there’d have been no need for her to shout and swear. My hat off to you Ms Patel.
The ‘civil servants’ were told not to talk to Priti themselves – even at weekends when they were supposed to be on call.
They were intent on stopping the change that Priti was supposedly powered to do.
I’d be rather worried when a government department with such a long history of ineptitude and failure screams “bully” at a Home Secretary who actually requires them to do their jobs.
Bullseye
OK, let’s look at a few facts about Polly and Demos.
Polly describes Demos as ‘a leading cross-party think tank’. A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that is is ‘a left-wing think tank’ ‘founded in 1993 by former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques’.
Without a trace of irony Polly describes Clegg’s role as ‘stopping the Prime Minister and his Cabinet from doing stuff we disagree with’.
A quick look at Polly’s Twitter account and Guardian articles reveal that she is just another left wing hack willing to do or say anything that attacks a Conservative Government.
So the accusations against Priti are false?
Well, the finding was that she ‘unintentionally’ broke the code which is a little odd.
I haven’t read the report – so I take your word for it.
PM should publish it and make his position via Priti clear and the country (though 99.9999% of the people don’t care) can move on.
I know the woman. She calls a spade a spade. Not behaviour that self servants like very much.
He doesn’t say that. Attacking Polly is the tactic de jour when you actually have no defence of Pritti you can mount. Johnson’s excuse that her bullyinging was unintentional is the worst kind of sophistry. Bullying is determined by its impact on the victim, in that sense its a strict liabilty “offence”. It cannot be unintentional as intent is not the issue.
Agree that this is the current definition in vogue (also requires repetition) but it is a ridiculous one. How any crime can be entirely defined subjectively by one involved party baffles me. It is so ridiculously open to abuse. Always reminds me of the bigoted Constable Savage in Not the Nine O’clock News arresting someone for “looking at me in a funny way”
There is a difference between commenting on the issue and highlighting the way the commenter has represented herself.
If we want to be accurate lets make sure it is all accurate.
I would like to think that this is true, and at any time before June 2016 I would have done. But since then the elite’s attack on democracy has been too blatant, too poisonous, for me to give them the benefit of the doubt any more. There is a ‘deep state’ – a quangocracy – a series of institutions that have been taken over thanks to the Long March – and I don’t trust it.
As for Priti Patel, the rumpus takes me back to school days when well-connected gangs of children would often claim that some unpopular child had been “bullying” them. One should ask: how can one person “bully” a whole group over which she has no effective power? Being obnoxious is not the same thing as bullying.
How truly independent can a report be that does not interview the accused? It is like someone being told that they do not need to attend their own trial because the judge will be listening to the case by the prosecution.
It is an investigation not a trial. Do you understand the difference?
Would you say that an investigation that doesn’t check with the accused their version of events is a reasonable one?
I do not know the investigation details, do you? As in how do you know she wasn’t questioned?
The Sunday Telegraph reported that Sir Alex never spoke to her or, by implication, asked for her statement. Quite why he thought he could ignore basic legal principles is anyone’s guess.
Sir Alex also did not interview Sir Philip Rutnam, who was head of the department for part of the time when Ms Patel was Home Secretary and has said recently that he warned her several times about her behaviour. That omission also is pretty extraordinary. It would be nice if we could see the full report, so we can make up our own minds. Instead, as the original article above forecast, Unherd regulars queued up to tee off on their various hobby horses – sorry for the mixed metaphor – regardless of what evidence is and is not available.
My understanding is Sir Alex wasn’t allowed to interview Phillip Rutnam because he is pursuing a claim of constructive dismissal at an Employment Tribunal so there was a need not to compromise either side’s case.
Equally, Rutman should have kept quiet about this since this will surely be part of his constructive dismissal claim.
Is that the correct process or does the policy require “the boss” to be questioned?
I do know that in corporate world when juniors complain about seniors, HR investigates the complaints and than makes the case about the accused to the senior management (for or against).
and I know that ‘the accused’ is always interviewed as part of the process. BEFORE a conclusion is drawn. To do otherwise is tantamount to being found guilty before it even starts.
Has she been found guilty?
Boris can publish the report and Priti can defend herself.
It’s trial by the media.
What politicians doesn’t go through “trial by the media”?
Ms Patel was set up by the Whitehall machine and she certainly was not going to be allowed to file a defence!
Do you really believe that the Civil Service is impartial and apolitical? The statements and behaviours of former Civil Servants once they have left their jobs suggests otherwise.
People do not behave/live in a vacuum, they are the product of the society at large. Either Civil Service is right about its analysis or it is not; either her (author’s) point stand or it doesn’t.
And when you say a lie what you really mean is “I don’t like it therefore it is a lie”.
In the past the CS prided itself on being apolitical as it has to serve whichever party is in office, without fear or favour. Do you think that is the case today?
I do know only 1 person that works in the Treasury. She is highly competent (BA and MBA from the best schools in the world) and pretty responsible person – but this is anecdotal.
As far as I can tell a segment of British polity (since Brexit) has embraced idea that CS is trying to screw them. My view is that (ancient Greeks warned us about it) politicians get elected by making unrealistic promises and when things fail they blame the CS and the people that voted for those politicians blame the CS too. It is easy to blame CS than for politicians (and the voters) to take responsibility.
Being highly competent, and being apolitical are not the same thing.
There is no doubt that the fact that the CS was against Brexit, and there are ex employees who have dared to say so, has dented public trust.
I did find what Steve Hilton had to say about the Civil Service interesting:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/ne…
My reply to you has been deleted. No idea why as it was polite, and in part, agreeing.
Maybe because I referenced an article by Steve Hilton about a conversation he had with Tony Blair about the CS.
I think it was very interesting, and probably accurate.
No link, Unherd doesn’t like links.
In the end Tony Blair (or Boris) are the PM. If they can not run the state they should resign.
My view (and I have not worked for the civil service) is that politicians get elected by making unrealistic promises and the CS is left to deal (minimize the damage?) with the situation.
US Supreme court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes once quipped that :
..if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.
The question was/is what should CS do? The day after the politicos retire and they have do deal with the mess.
It is perfectly legitimate (and democratic) to help people go to hell…others will say no.
I guess it depends on who YOU think should be running the country. A bit old fashioned, I know, but I think it is whoever the plebiscite vote for, and yes I believe that even when it’s a Government I totally disagree with.
However, this is what PM Blair said to Steve Hilton:
Mr Blair told him: “You cannot underestimate how much they believe it’s their job to actually run the country and to resist the changes put forward by people they dismiss as ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ politicians.”
He said he (TB) then added: “They genuinely see themselves as the true guardians of the national interest, and think that their job is simply to wear you down and wait you out.”
If that is true, and I am sure it is, then according to you, every elected PM should simply resign.
In fact I don’t really know why we bother having elections at all.
By the way, I too know a (now retired) senior Civil Servant, Sir IM., and I certainly believe what Tony Blair said.
Yes, think of Iraq War and Tony Blair. When the people had the chance (and THEY DID) to punish him during GE2005 they re-elected him.
People are sovereign and they elect the politicians to run the country on their behalf – AS IT SHOULD BE. I have never claimed otherwise.
The only thing (and I know it is hopeless) I am asking is for the people and politicians to take responsibility when they screw up.
I very much hope that Priti did builly the useless, overpaid t******s that occupy the higher levels of the civil service, and probably every other level as well. The fact is that the vast majority of them should have been fired years ago for consistently selling out the British people, and a bit of bullying is the least they deserve.
“…consistently selling out the British people,”
how did they do that?
Jez, your comments are both predictable and eminently unedifying. Do b****r off whenever you like, there’s a jolly good chap
Yes, Nigel you are so original (in an Unhinged way) with your comments.
I know…what are you still doing here?
Jeremy and Nigel well done, keep up the good work. You sound like Tony Greig and Bill Lawrie (that may date me). Its hilarious.
Lets start with the Home Office and the grooming gang report.
Why is that hidden?
A political decision – as far as I understand it (correct me please if you know better) the PM doesn’t want to publish it.
Are you telling me that the report exist and the BoJo is asking to be published but the CS is saying NO?!
Priti is the head of HO, is she trying to publish it and the CS is saying No?
By creating a highly sensitive politically correct environment where the crimes of grooming young girls by ethnic minority adults were not throughly investigated on time.
By allowing certain communities to flourish in which gun violence became norm.
The Civil Service did that…not the politicians that got elected, and managed (or not) migration policy?
Tar and feathers would be much more appropriate. A threat of hanging from the yard-arm should be kept in reserve, though, pour encourager les autres.
Or maybe senior civil servants in the Home Office didn’t like being told that they were not particularly good at doing their job. And looking at the record of the Home Office over the last 10 years she may well have a point.
Polly, darling, you are a suppurating remainer still smarting from Brexit. You and your like will stop at nothing to rubbish, denigrate, undermine, misrepresent, lie, cheat or otherwise p1$$ on anything that you are unable to understand in your narrow, juvenile little remainer world.
Where was this article when you lot were visiting this on us?
Interesting isn’t. Now the boot is on the other foot, they complain about being forced out against their consent.
Not that they cared about other people’s consent when they were doing the kicking.
FOr remainers, that’s a tough life lesson
Have upvoted for the sentiment and wish I could upvote again for use of “suppurating”.
Thanks
Deep thinking comment! It makes Max Webber sound like a clown.
I think you must mean Prof. Wollofski
No I mean Max Webber.
Max Wall?
Anyway, didn’t we tell you to b****r off
“we”..?
..most people are too polite to actually tell you, but i’m not. Now b****r off, there’s a good chap
And I am sure it is a sentiment shared by many commenters…
And are you sure it wasn’t Prof. Wollofski…?
Speak for yourself a**whole.
Ooohh, get you with the nasty words…
The imaginary Deep State almost kept us in the EU, despite a massive 31 million voter referendum. That’s pretty good for something which doesn’t exist!
Deep state…LOL
Of course you could present some evidence that Patel is wrong and the Home Office is a compentent department.
Let me give you some evidence. The FOI department at the HO refuses to answer and FOI request for their department telephone number.
The FOI department refuses to release the Grooming gang report on Public interest grounds. OK. FOI for that assessment. You can guess. They refuse that too most likely because it doesn’t exist.
Make a complaint. Their website tells you how. Ring the switchboard and you will be put through. OK, ring them, Can I speak to complaints? We don’t have any number for a complaints department.
The entire FOI department is staffed by members of the magic roundabout. Perhaps they should choose different names when making them up.
They are incompetent. The attacks on Patel is all about defending that incompetency.
Boris can simply overrule CS and publish the report!
Are you telling me that BoJo wants it published and a civil service is saying NO?
And Priti is the head of HO – so what is she doing?
You are complaining about HO while defending Priti.
Priti can publish the investigation.
I don’t think Bo Jo can just say “publish” and it happens there is a lengthy process. The option that is fast is reading out in the house of commons.
Fine, he can leak it.
Irrespective of the details of the author’s background and of the merits or demerits of the “Deep State” theory, it is important to recognise that bullies are often the first to complain that they are being bullied. I have certainly had first-hand experience of that accusation being used as a bullying technique.
Now, in the case of the Home Office, we know that its “unfitness for purpose” was first identified by John Reid, a LABOUR home secretary, many years ago, and anyone with the most cursory interest in British politics must know that the Home Office has not become any fitter for purpose in the last 15 years. Polite secretaries of state for home affairs have got nowhere. It would be charitable to attribute this to incompetence on the part of their Civil Servants, but to the unprejudiced eye it looks like dumb insolence, a very effective form of group bullying. I am bitterly disappointed by most of what Boris Johnson is doing at the moment, but when he calls on MPs to “form a square around the Prittster” he is discharging his moral duty towards a seriously wronged minister, and not in any way indulging in double standards.
Interesting piece, not partisan, and fair points. However.
Bullying is a suitably vague term to be both impossible to prove or to disprove – who is to say what is bullying, who has been bullied? So it’s well set up to attach itself, one way or the other, to partisan causes.
From your piece:
“She only shouted at civil servants in the first place because they refused to do her bidding as part of a deep state conspiracy against Brexit, apparently. Alex Allan’s report is not independent, it’s a continued effort in the war against Brexit: senior civil servants trying to take down a popular minister securing a popular agenda.”
I didn’t vote for Brexit, but this theory, other than the superfluous use of “deep state”, does strike me as pretty plausible. Surely we have, after all, seen a procession of attempts to either reject the Brexit vote or to minimise the actual Brexit we get (all that talk about “no deal”).
“…strike me as pretty plausible. “
ERG voted against the Brexit deal – the same one that Boris sold it to the party and the country.
Was ERG trying to block Brexit?
Not sure this is relevant to my point? Do you think I’m a representative of the ERG?
The same WA that was rejected by the Remainers was also rejected by ERG. You are talking about Civil Service, deep state as if you are “in the know”….are you?
For opposite reasons.
Both sides claimed that the WA wasn’t good enough.
Boris got the same deal (after he sold out NI – that is why DUP MPs voted against the WA) and sold it to the Tory party (first) and the public as the “oven ready deal”…so what am I missing?
Because if follow your reasoning it means that Leavers and ONLY leavers can approve/reject any deal with EU.
No Jeremy. The ERG were trying to block a sell out.
At that time Parliament had many Conservative MPs who did not believe in the referendum result (and got elected by saying they did) and were trying to stop Brexit altogether.
Boris was trying to get us out of this impasse – his current internal market bill reflects that fact.
Your comment is very contradictory.
I am sorry you did not understand it.
The “contradiction” only exists because the two sides were using it for different purposes.
It does not mean that they both agreed on the direction of travel they wanted.
the same WA (with the Irish deal added by Boris) was sold to the Tory party and the country – by Boris – as the oven ready deal.
If the deal was bad before (hence ERG Vote) why is it good now?
DUP voted against it!
if I follow your reasoning it means that Leavers and ONLY leavers can truly (! ) vote on ANY future EU deal!
How is that supposed to work?
Something to do with democracy – perhaps you remember the referendum?
As I mentioned above Boris was trying to get through an impasse, caused by Conservative MPs pretending they believed in Brexit to get elected and then reneging on their party’s election commitments.
Now Boris has a majority in the commons, he is trying to rectify the WA with the Internal Market Bill. Funnily enough it is the unelected Peers who are trying to stop this.
The WA is as it stands, a bad outcome for the UK because it means trade within the UK is partially controlled by the EU.
Again your comment is contradictory.
“The WA is as it stands, a bad outcome for the UK because it means trade within the UK is partially controlled by the EU.”
Boris told us that the deal was great a year ago. How can it be bad now?
How can (election, democracy and all that as you say) a PM win an election on the ground “I got a great deal” and now say it is a bad deal – only 9 months later?
Isn’t he( as you say) ” reneging on their party’s election commitments.” Or is it OK when YOUR side does it?
Either you support/oppose “party election manifesto/commitment” as a matter of principal or you don’t.
The same principal applies to Bullying – either you are against it no matter who does it or you don’t.
I get it, you support Brexit, and I am not going to change you mind, but you got to be extremely shameless to justify the actions of Boris.
No they were trying to stop a sell out of Brexit. Brino
Do think
My wife has a small accountancy practice. In 2012 we had a problem with HMRC. They screwed up an IT upgrade and lost our agent login account. This meant we couldn’t do any work for any of our customers. HMRC were arrogant and unhelpful. They insisted we had to rectify their mistakes.
We contacted our local MP, Priti. She sunk her teeth into HMRC with the tenacity of a terrier. She identified the individual who had caused the problem highlighting the problems we had faced and named the person responsible on the floor of the House. That individual is nor recorded in Hansard.
For the public service, Priti is a walking nightmare. Someone prepared to identify individuals who fail the community and call them out. It is no wonder the civil service want rid of her.
‘while it was never a roaring commercial success, the Independent newspaper captured the spirit of what it meant to be independent: free from fear or favour.’ I used to work at the NUJ, in the computer department. My one and only colleague, a proper dyed-in-the-wool commie, read the Independent as his newspaper of choice. That was in the very early 90s. Need I say more?
I find it astonishing that a supposedly impartial review did not even talk/interview the person accused of bullying/breaking the code. Was Sir Allen too intimataed to face her?
In corporate world the investigators tries to establish the facts before they are presented to a committee (HR) about the accused – especially if the accuser is senior in relation to the accuser.
Interesting article. I can’t help thinking having Boris in charge has exacerbated this, just as Trump did in the US. Often it seems that accusing the other side of being political is just a way of advancing your own political agenda on the sly. The equivalent of saying look over there so you can get away with something. But when both sides seem to be so partisan it is not hard to rightly argue that the other side is playing fast and loose with the facts. And when both sides do it, it just becomes normalised, just the price of doing politics. Unfortunately, this makes it about politics and your side winning and less about the truth and what is good for the population you are expected to serve. The infighting and games, distract from the big issues. And the public don’t care as long as their side beats the opposition.
Great comment – sadly one 1 uptick. The rest of the comments just prove your point.
If only everybody agreed with your crap, eh, Jeremy?
A few do, most here are Unhinged.
At last the vitriol!
the truth is ugly
Why was the comment deleted? I didn’t really agree with it, but it was hardly offensive.
Interesting comment – just one problem – what does it mean?
Afraid that’s your problem, life’s too short to be explaining things to trolls.
Peter,
Unfortunately you have completely missed the point.
It was the Democrats in the US who started their war against Trump, because they did not like the result.
It is the same here with Brexit, the anti democrats have desperately tried to overturn the referendum result.
Also, the Home Office has been declared unfit for purpose by Labour politicians, and both Mrs May & Amber Rudd had trouble with it.
It does appear that the Home Office has it’s own agenda and does not like political direction which is against that agenda.
“It was the Democrats in the US who started their war against Trump”
Did you miss Mitch McConnell decision in 2008 to make Obama one term president by opposing everything he did -including Obamacare.
The republican party won election after election by promising to “Repeal & Replace” – and so did Trump…so where is it?
I would contend that you have missed the point. Perhaps on purpose-
‘Partisans hate to be reminded of the evidence, chronicled in The Political Brain, that taking a political side alters your brain so that you respond emotionally, instead of logically, to facts.’
I have acknowledge that both sides have this problem. I would argue it is incontestable that Trump and Boris use lies and distort the truth to obtain power.
Disagree. People care when they are shafted. It’s politicians who care about the fight and attacking others.
Often people vote for getting shafted…
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
No what you mean is ‘the masses are very stupid and don’t know what they are voting for’.
You would rather hide behind your clever little phrase.
Yes, that is indeed a cruder way of phrasing the same sentiment. Doesn’t do anything to disprove it, though.
Look, granted that the voters are the boss of the government… when your boss tells you to do something, and you know that it is something that’s never going to work and that he’s only telling you to do it because he has no idea what your job actually entails, wouldn’t you try to talk him out of giving you that ridiculous order? Or if that proved impossible, try to at least follow his general instructions in such a way as to limit the inevitable damage?
I am afraid I have lost confidence that the Civil Servants and Judiciary are independent.
These functionaries were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU and have been shocked that their status quo has been questioned. Their actions in resisting change for over three years has resulted in a further statement of intent by the British people in the last election.
The British people have expressed their opinion and it is up to the functionaries to execute their desires. The Civil Service, the Supreme Court as well as the BBC have to recognise that they need to rebuild that confidence and show that they are working for the whole country not just their clique.
My impression reading through the comments is that most Unherd readers think that bullying the civil service is perfectly justified. A lot of commenters clearly detest the civil service which is odd given that the Tories have been in power for over 10 years and have reformed it many times already.
There seems to be a widely held opinion that if you treat staff badly that will improve their ability to deliver what they have been told to do. Is that true? Is there any objective research that backs that up?
In answer to the question; What can possibly go wrong? I would suggest the following; 1/ A good news culture. Staff only tell managers the good news rather than the truth, 2/ Blame culture; to deflect criticism a finger pointing culture develops and everyone learns to distrust and hate each other, 3/ Set up to fail; a manager who gives staff impossible jobs to do and won’t listen to why that is, 4/ The Best People; Donald Trump claims he only hires the best people, and then he sacks them all. Does anyone really imagine the “best people” would touch any of his jobs with a bargepole? Notice also that winners of the Apprentice don’t hang around for long after they are employed by Alan Sugar. Why would anyone good want to work for a boss like that?
A number of issues with your comment.
Firstly, I have not seen anyone who has said, or even implied that ‘ if you treat staff badly that will improve their ability to deliver what they have been told to do’
Only that it is not surprising if someone loses their temper under extremely frustrating conditions.
Secondly, and really most importantly, ‘Donald Trump claims he only hires the best people, and then he sacks them all’. That is the greatest problem with the CS – they can not BE sacked, except for gross misconduct, and even then it’s extremely rare.
Are you also aware that the CS has no form of annual review? Totally unheard of in Private industry. That is the obvious way to improve performance, and those who don’t deliver can be given verbal, and the written warnings if they do not perform.
Thirdly, Even Sir Alex accepted that Priti did not intend to bully anyone but was frustrated by the unhelpful attitude of her staff, and that since it had been brought to her attention conditions had greatly improved, as had relations within the department (perhaps something to do with Rutman resigning?)
That Sir Alex came to those conclusions without even interviewing Priti herself I consider that to be particularly telling.
As for not touching those jobs with a barge pole. The CS is nothing like working for Sir Alan in private industry, it is effectively a guaranteed job for life with good pay (Rutman was paid considerably more than his ‘Boss;) and even more generous retirement packages.
No one is stopping UK GOV from hiring people with IQ of 200 and PhD in STEMs. Go for it. And pay them £250K a year!
Personally I am very doubtful of the independence of the author of this Opinion piece. I briefly had dealings with Pritti Patel when she was a junior Treasury Minister and found her direct and businesslike ( I was not on the home team). I am fascinated that so many people have views on the correctness of the outcome of an investigation of which they know next to nothing, but my prejudice is that the Minister probably has been forthright and direct in her opinions and directions to her civil servants and thank goodness for that. However it was something else in this Opinion piece which made me really reflect. It was the assertion of departmental loyalty and the reciprocal Ministers / Civil Servant mutual defence pact – with both seen as good things. Personally I think not. The Departmental warfare in my experience is highly damaging to good ” joined up” government and the unholy mutual defence alliance between Ministers and their senior Civil Servants very often and predictably prevents the inept on either side being disclosed or found out. The fist problem should be tackled by strong leadership from the very top – banging heads together ( figuratively) if needs be whereas the second is much more difficult to root out. Maybe a decent Internal Audit function headed by an independent Cabinet Minister might help. But who am I kidding? However, until solutions are found, both these factors are likely to severely hamper the cause of decent, accountable and joined up government.
I would like to know when swearing about incompetence (as apparently quoted) is bullying and when it is not.
Gordon Brown, allegedly constantly swore at people and even threw a stapler at someone.
Danny Dyer, that ‘great’ actor has made many political pronouncements over the last few years and can’t utter a complete sentence without at least a couple of expletives and is now being called upon to stand for political office. I wonder how that would work!
It is almost impossible to walk down any High St (in normal times) without hearing expletives.
Is shouting always bullying? If so, I think that virtually ALL parents bully their children. (If they are honest)
I don’t know if she did, or didn’t bully her staff. But even Sir Alex accepts any bullying was unintentional.
“‘Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.”
Successive Home Secretaries , Tory and Labour have been ham-strung by their civil servants who by and large are public school educated remainers who resent being told what to do or that they are not doing their job. The Home Office has been declared not fit for purpose by said successive home secretaries – civil servants caused Amber Rudd to reign over Grenfell because she was not given correct data by those ‘clever’ grey men. Priti Patel is up against it for a) being female, being from an ethnic minority and not educated at the ‘right’ institutions, not to mention that she has a strong work ethic which those freeloaders marking time till they can draw their gold plated pensions could only dream of. Not surprised if she lost her temper with these wusses – they need to do their job and/or grow a pair.
“Tory and Labour have been ham-strung by their civil servants who by and large are public school educated remainers”
But since UK was a member of EU until 2016 and it was the policy of every single major UK political party to be a member of EU should Civil Service during all those years (43) supported Leave?
“The Home Office has been declared not fit for purpose by said successive home secretaries…” and those ministers had the constitutional power and responsibility to reform the Home Office. They did not!
Particularly the long-serving Home Secretary, Mrs May. Back in the 1980s, when the Home Office actually had a much wider range of responsibilities than nowadays (prisons and broadcasting to name only 2) it was actually a more efficient department. But then it also had more effective Home Secretaries and junior ministers too. The rot started to set in during the 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s. Many would argue this reflects a general decline in the quality of the ministerial cadre and the political class generally.
Certainly, in Ms Patel’s case she has previous form in failing to get to grips with the spendthrift culture at DfID and in her infamous off-piste policy excursion in Israel. Like many, I suspect she keeps her place – for now – because of her Boris/Brexit loyalty credentials rather than her leadership qualities. I support Brexit, but it is absurd to see everything through this lens, particularly the range of important non-Brexit issues facing the Home Office today. It needs competent and effective ministers and civil servants to tackle these problems. Their stance on Brexit is largely irrelevant. M
Poor article. The civil service is a poor quality organisation that has a primary remit to perpetuate its own existence. They have damaged and slowed our democracy and society. A wholesale clear out is needed and proper performance management applied.
Surely the point about this farrago is that Advisers advise and ministers decide. Based on Allan’s report the Prime Minister decided. That is how the civil service rules of conduct are meant to work. The fact that Allan flounced off and resigned, not to mention the phalanx of ex-mandarin’s who expressed the view Patel should have been fired, suggests that he was not fit to be an adviser in the first place and the manadarins do not understand their constitutional role.
Dr John Reid for Labour described the Home Office as ‘unfit for purpose’, later Amber Rudd had to resign after her organisation created the Windrush scandal. So rich indeed to defend that arm of government as perfect, and it is entirely Patel at fault. Whether you agree with her policies or not, it is what she and the PM were elected to enact, end of.
Either Priti is responsible for bullying or she is not?
You mean, is she guilty of giving bullies a taste of their own medicine? Why should we care?
The most damning of double standards is how Labour are now supporting the racists who wanted to send the Windrush generation back to the West Indies, while demanding that Priti Patel hand back her ‘brown card’ because she doesn’t agree with their political views.
We have senior Civil Servants who are either corrupt or incompetent. No major project is completed either on time or within budget. The fortunes signed over in secret PPP contracts is meanwhile hidden from public view.
Some of the detail behind Patel’s demands is damning. Patel is seeking the right to speak to the junior or middle ranking civil servants who actually have an expertise worth consulting. This is currently denied her by senior civil servants who flit from department to department mirroring so many of the worthless ministers we have endured.
Umm, what is your old boss up to these days?
Working for FB. But what is the connection with the article?
Either her point makes sense or it doesn’t!
Her old boss, who she chooses not to name, is a self-serving, disingenuous slime ball. Her willingness to work for him speaks volumes about her own credibility.
Her creditability has nothing to do with investigation.
He was democratically elected, in case you missed it. You might not agree with LIbDems policies but that is the point of democracy.
“…self-serving, disingenuous slime ball…” like Boris ?
Or you are OK with Boris?
Since Boris is long term pathological liar, a charlatan, selfish, immoral and so on…what (based on your reasoning) does it mean for all those people that work for him like Priti?
P.S. You know who she worked for because it is public info.
If Boris were to quit politics and take up a job paying millions with the European Commission, then you might have a point.
AGAIN – Since Boris is long term pathological liar, a charlatan, selfish, immoral and so on…what (based on your reasoning) does it mean for all those people that work for him like Priti?
And the salary of a European Commissioner is c.250K a year.
Is that Polly……Tonybee did you mean dear?
Whoever said “bullying” is something that a Minister cannot do to a civil servant? Please tell us what it is, and what the facts were, as well as the grey areas, so that we can judge. I don’t need to be told what I should think. In my view, the jury is out about Priti and the civil servants. Plus, there are many more important issues that the Home Office has to deal with, than the bruised ego of senior civil servants.
PM should make the report public, that would solve the problem.
Most people will not read it (they will pretend otherwise) but they will still comment based on their partisan position.
How on earth do adults let themselves get bullied? When someone tries to bully you, you discreetly take them aside and politely, but firmly, tell them to stop. Works every time.
“…truly hard for many of our political leaders to even conceptualise what it might mean to be independent. It’s the politics of medieval warlords: unless you are on our side, you must be our sworn enemy.”
The same may be said of the TwitFace loud-hailers and the Cambridge Cancel Culture brigade. Is this not a case of No 10 being a dedicated follower of fashion? As Martin Bell (the poet) said, “The brain sharpens its politics. The personality falls apart.” {from ‘Axioms’]
My better half is an accountant. She runs a sole practice mostly doing tax work. Back in 2012 we had a problem with HMRC. They contrived to “upgrade” their agent log in systems. What that actually did was to erase our agent login authority for all our clients. Without that we could not work.We contacted HMRC who insisted they had done nothing wrong… That we were at fault and that we had to ask all our customers to re-authorise us to act on their behalf.
Obviously that would look like incompetence on our part and destroy all our credibility with our customers and probably lead to loosing all or most of our business. So we contacted Priti who is our MP. She looked into the matter and found out is was a fundamental c**k up on behalf of HMRC. When they couldn’t find a solution she named the individuals responsible at Questions in the House. The problem was resolved. But the person (I have to refrain from using the appropriate language) is now recorded in Hansard.
Such a direct approach is a nightmare to civil servants who are used to hiding behing anonymous walls. It is of little surprise the Civil Service don’t much love Priti. She is their worst nightmare walking in daylight.
I could well be guilty of wishful thinking, but I expect that very much like Corbyn and Co., Johnson and Co will find there is much truth in the old saying ‘what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive’. It must soon be getting to the point that anything uttered by this Government is going to contradict one of their previous statements and policies .
Polly Mackenzie probably wouldn’t either enjoy, or agree with, one of Mrs Thatcher’s favourite TV programmes then – ‘Yes, Minister’.
Good God, the Unherd comments section really has become a pestilent cesspool mainly populated by bloviating blowhards who frequently mistake their own opinions for unarguable fact.
Or, in English, they disagree with you?
become?
It seems to be inevitable. Whenever someone gives space to all points of view, it attracts hordes of the people whose point of view are given the least space elsewhere. And those people are what is commonly known as “stupid jerks.”
It’s still a worthy endevour, and I really like the articles, but yeah, the comment section is toxic.
… the comment section is toxic….. I know because I monitor it carefully.
Snowflakery?
It will be fun to read the report when it is finally leaked. Meanwhile, the most astonishing revelation is that Johnson had someone whose job it supposedly was to advise him on ethical standards! How ridiculous! I see that now he has resigned, but wonder why he did not recognise that his role was entirely superfluous on day one.
“It reminds me of the old Sherlock Holmes adage: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth.””
The old Sherlock Holmes adage is quite simply wrong, as any philosopher of modality will immediately tell you. Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains is an array of possibilities, some of which are very likely to be mutually inconsistent.
“Yes Minister” taught me that it is impossible for a minister to bully a Civil Servant!
The minister is responsible for the acts and failures of the department and increasingly is the longstop and fall guy, rather than the policy setter and leader. So frankly, the minster has a right to demand performance. Patel told a Civil Servant that he/she was “f**king useless”! We need more minsters who are demanding and blunt with underperforming officials.
Bullying, my arse! We really have entered a Humpty Dumpty world when strong words between a cabinet minister and a few very highly paid senior civil servants is called ‘bullying’.
Don’t any of these people crying ‘Bully!’ have anything better to do?
Polly, put the kettle on. There’s a love.
The main point is, none of this is very important.
Wow, a few issues here. Lets start: “Demos, a leading cross-party think tank” well a left wing think tank, and nothing wrong with that I probably agree with many of their policy positions but letys get the cards on the table we have a LibDem former Spad from a Left wing think tank criticising one the more right wing cabinet ministers.
This does not make criticism illegitimate but it is important not to misrepresent who is making judgements.
I also notice the increasing hostility towards conservatives from public officials and it is actually very concerning. I would probably agree with the views of the officials in terms of the criticism of the conservative government in terms of its ambitions. The modern conservative government seems to lack people with the institutional mindset who can work out how to bend the bodies of state to achieve their goals.
I would add one more claim of bullying which is missed, the claims about Gordon Brown. If we are talking double standards then that is worth mentioning.
It is worth quoting the report:
“The home secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in the Department for International Development (Dfid) three years ago.”
Certainly Patel should be found to have breached the code, as acting unprofessionally is not acceptable. Particularly as the penalty is dictated by the prime minister as well. However, the idea that Permanent Secretaries of Government Departments of the scale of the Home Office (budget about £14Bn) and DfID (Budget about £12Bn) can’t tell a 5ft 3 woman that they don’t think it is appropriate to shout or swear, Suggest two possibilities:
1)The civil service leadership is so inept that it needs a complete clear out, they are unable to deliver and they lack the backbone to say “please don’t shout;”
2)The behaviour actually wasn’t a big concern, but is a sign that the civil service are setting up to undermine ministers who expect senior civil servants to deliver.
I suspect that this is a case of 1, but that really speaks as to why departments are under performing, if you are the head of a department you have the responsibility to stand up and say when you don’t believe something is right.
Patel’s behaviour was wrong, however I think the civil service must be very broken if the Permanent Secretaries are either such feeble leaders they are not willing to speak out if they witness behaviour which they consider so terrible it requires a referral for breaching the ministerial code.
What do they do if the witness other things going wrong? What if they witness bullying in other contexts? This issue really makes me doubt the quality of senior civil servants.
Some sweeping generalizations, but generally on the ball. As Patel has the full support of the PM, we may logically infer that the dismantling of the British State from within will continue.
This is often repeated but I’m not sure how much truth there is in it. When the accusations against Bercow were put to the Commons standards committee it was actually only remainers (Phillipson and Streeter) who voted to investigate him, and a brexiter (Chope) voted against. Given the chair does not vote, Conservatives also outnumbered Labour votes on the committee so it can’t even be claimed that Labour were the ones who protected Bercow.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that Patel was found conclusively to have broken the ministerial code, whereas the claims against Bercow never got off the ground. It would be damning enough to Patel apologists if this were an apples to apples comparison, but it isn’t even that.
‘The message is simple: My side is allowed to have double standards. My opponents are not.’
Er, no. You’ve got things the wrong way round. You should have written, ‘The message is simple. If my opponents are allowed to protect an alleged bully then so are we. The same rules must apply to both.’ So no double standards.
Double standards? That is absurd. Patel was not accused at yelling at juniors. Rather, she is accused of being very demanding in her expectations of the civil service. Would that more people were.
Welcome to the hyper partisan world, it will get a lot worse before the backlash comes
Lots of angry people commenting here. Really quite nasty. I expect Patel will go, eventually. Just as Cummings went, eventually. Just as Johnson generally always waits a few weeks until he does the thing his more sensible advisers persuade him to do.