The Tories have reacted to the sacking of Dominic Raab by suggesting that we should have a politicised civil service in the UK. That would break a supposed tradition lasting well over 100 years.
As usual, the Tories have got this wrong, but as ever with enough in their back story to make it appear that they might have a point.
Firstly, of course the civil service is political. Everything about life is. That is most especially true when power is involved, and the civil service is all about power.
Second, the civil service is political because it is not representative of society. It has a bias to Oxbridge. Since Oxbridge in turn is biased, the bias is doubly inbuilt.
Third, the civil service favours those good at exams when that proves very little about the abilities required in most jobs.
Fourth, the civil service survives on tradition. Hence the persistence of the century plus old view that the government must balance its books for which there is no evidence at all, but to which all in that place must subscribe to get on.
Fifth, I rather suspect there are other prejudices in the civil service.
But, and I stress the point, that suggests the need for civil service reform, and not the politicisation of the civil service.
In the UK we have a two party system of government where, once elected a government tends to ignore its MPs, parliament and the electorate. There is no effective opposition, as Questions to the Prime Ministers proves every week.
In that case the civil service is the only mechanism that we can rely on to challenge ministers.
We should of course improve the electoral system and accountability.
We should also properly resource parliament so it can do a better job.
But until then we must rely on the civil service. Make that political and just about the last check and balance in British democracy will have gone.
Maybe the Tories want that. I do not.
The civil service needs to remain apolitical, and get rid of its biases.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We should aim for an apolitical civil service for the same reasons it was introduced in the 1870, more than a decade after the Northcote-Trevelyan Report made the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northcote–Trevelyan_Report
Before then, employment and advancement within the Civil Service was largely based on political patronage rather than ability.
Institutions and the people within them have their own biases, which should be acknowledged and addressed, but it is better then deliberately introducing bias. A political civil service will be less effective at administering the nation, even if better at implementing government policy perhaps.
One reform that could usefully be introduced is rowing back on the numbers and creeping influence of Special Advisors since they were dreamt up in 1964, when a Labour government did not trust the inherent conservatism within the Civil Service.
I tend to agree on Spads. One, or maybe two per senior minister may be appropriate. Beyond that, I doubt it
I agree your point that once elected government’s tend to ignore their MPs, Parliament and the electorate.
For that reason, after years of considering the alternatives, the gravitational tug of the only Chartist demand not to be enacted in the UK, the demand for yearly General Elections, I find ever stronger, despite all the obvious problems.
Your last sentence: ‘The civil service needs to remain political’?
Corrected
It is sometimes very hard to see your own typos
My position on the civil service has been made clear. I remain deeply sceptical about it to the point I admit of prejudice.
I do so on the results I have seen of policy this last 30 odd years in this country and being the ‘recipient’ of those policies.
For me, if the civil service is being ignored, then that is a matter of public record in my view.
I have no idea what the rules are on the disclosure of policy discussions with whatever maladjusted political party is in power. I suppose some things are secret for the reasons of national security – I accept that.
But if the civil service does speak out, then it has a right to be heard if it has been ignored or even undermined.
Democracy is accountability, and there has to be a some form of disclosure. So in the name of that I’d like to see more disclosure about the relationship between the service and the politicians.
Democracy needs to be a ongoing debate – it allows decisions to be made but allows changes to be made. What I sense in recent politics is a closing down and a new ‘permanent’ reality being created – a cancel culture emerging (the ‘politics of eternity’ courtesy of Tim Snyder and the destruction of the NHS as a ‘bad policy that should never have happened’ as stated by the likes of Daniel Hannan).
If civil servants do indeed speak truth to power, then let it be heard where it is appropriate. How’s that for democracy? How’s that for plurality?
All we have at the moment is a system where vested interests are enabled to dominate.
I have always admired and agreed with many your comments, PSR, but in this instance I think you are wrong.
The duty of senior civil servants is to advise their ministers, ‘to speak truth to power’ and also to administer the implementation of ministers’ decisions. They can point out the flaws in a proposal as rigorously as they able, but ultimately it is their job to see that it is implemented. Their last resort is to request a formal written instruction, but that is as far as they can go. To make their specific speaking of ‘truth to power’ public would be to immediately politicise them. Which is, surely, the very last thing that we want?
I do think that the civil service needs to be looked at in the whole context of how the government ‘works’, rather than as a separate problem. I think that Richard articulates it here:
“In the UK we have a two party system of government where, once elected a government tends to ignore its MPs, parliament and the electorate.”
The question really is “*Why* can the government ignore its MPS, Parliament and the electorate?”
I have just finished reading Ian Dunt’s excellent and well researched book, ‘How Westminster Works …And Why it Doesn’t’ which makes it clear that the whole system is completely dysfunctional, from the selection of MPs, through to the failure of the media to hold the government to account. I would highly recommend it to everyone to read as an excellent, if terrifying, overview of the entire ‘Westminster’ system.
For me, the essence of the problem is the way that the entire system has given the Executive (the government) the opportunity to draw more and more power to itself, completely subverting the progress made since the English Civil war in taking power *from* the monarch and vesting it in Parliament. ‘Parliament’ being the entirety of the Commons and the Lords, the Legislature which is supposedly supreme. The Executive is the Crown in Parliament and should be *subject* to Parliament. but it has the powers, which it has mercilessly abused over the past few years, to completely control the House of Commons and minimise, to the point of obliteration, its functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account. Ironically, the only parliamentary element that is successfully restraining some Executive power is the House of Lords.
The civil service, by their very function as a servant of government, is powerless to prevent the Executive grabbing power and I think it is wrong to criticise them for not doing something which is beyond their remit. Or to assume that they have more power than they actually do.
And very wrong to suggest that they enter the political fray by making public their advice to ministers.
P.S I don’t believe that the CS is any less flawed than any other institution.
Thanks
Ian Dunt writes well
Thank you Maggie.
We agree that things aren’t working then? I’ve nothing to disagree with you about anything particularly in the large paragraph etc. It’s just how we go about changing it.
Raab is saying that the civil service’s advice is riddled with woke/Marxism/left politics that just gets in the way of dynamic minsters like himself – ignoring of course the gung ho/big bang/shock doctrine stuff him and his ilk like to deliver.
And I’m OK with being wrong on this particular matter because its not exactly a flat earth argument or one about the existence of gravity or where money comes from. It’s just an opinion. If a civil servant has just seen policy made on the No. 10 sofa – he or she should say so. I mean we can’t trust Parliament with that job can we? Hmm?
And my opinion is that if we cannot control the media, or change the selection of MPs etc., then some sort of control or balance needs to be written into the civil service role?
In fact – why not rip the whole bloody mess up and start again? All of it.
What I find irksome however is that no one seems to consider that the civil service itself might actually be inculcated with some malignant stuff we see in policy. That in actual fact, there is support in the service for ministers to do what they do. In this day and age I’m very sceptical about that, given reports of how some civil servants end up in the private sector?
Whilst agreeing with your summary and probably no doubt Dunt’s book (I promise I will check it out) about what the problems are, we maybe cannot agree on remedies.
I just think that disclosure is the way. We’ve seen how easy it is for malignant forces in this country to undermine our institutions. We need more checks and balance in some form or other but than that we need to go back to the essence of accountability.
I will comment to more – the points you’ve raised are valid.
If it was politicised (which I think would be a disaster), then presumably it would be more along the model of America and after each General Election there would need to be a wholesale replacement of the civil servants. Our whole system of changing Governments would need to be changed. Though of course I have no doubt that this would be another element of Tories ensuring they were in permanent government.
That’s a good point actually and got me thinking (dangerous for me I know) about what the pubic sector is for.
Is it a bunch of automatons doing what the politicians of the day say?
Or is it some sort of ‘stable layer’ holding the country together between period of political change?
Who is it looking after really?
Does it’s remit need to change?
I wouldn’t mind a civil service charged with enabling and sustaining a ‘courageous state’ for example.
The Conservatives have suddenly decided to make the Civil Service an issue. The problem is twofold. First, they have not made any manifesto issue for it; and offered nothing until the Bullies they chose as ministers from their low grade administration came under scrutiny for misbehaviour. This is no ground for an argument from principle. Second, in our dreadful political world, driven by a despicable rightwing press which dictates the News Agenda that decrees only the neoliberal Conservative Party can change anything fundamental in politics. Anything else suggested by anyone else, is heresy. This is how low our politics has sunk; an open sewer.
Spads are one thing. They come and go. Dominic Cummings may have swung the Brexit referendum for which he should be held to account, but he is now just yet another blog.
Think tanks are much more dangerous. Some do play a positive role as far as I can see but some are funded by people unknown to most of us and promote ideas which are in the interest of ‘the few’. They played a large part in the promotion of neo-liberalism on both sides of the Atlantic providing arguments and policies which the leadership of the parties took on. Stedman-Jones gives a good account in ‘Masters of the Universe’. They continue.
The American Heritage Foundation claimed to have written two -thirds of Trump’s legislative program. It is even worse in the US as tin their system the top officials are sometimes drawn from them. This may be what the Conservatives have in mind. They do follow the ideas of the American Right.
“The Tories have reacted to the sacking of Dominic Raab by suggesting that we should have a politicised civil service in the UK”……
A cursory reading of Hancock’s leaked WhatsApp messages or the behaviour of ‘Top civil servant’ during the covid parties suggests that the relationship is too close/cosy. Perhaps the latest demand simply shows that Raab believes the relationship isn’t deferential enough – some folk welcome constructive criticism, others seek only “yes men”. I suggest that the latter are not suited to positions of power in a democracy.
This is the tories looking to blame others for another of their failings….. we shouldn’t be distracted.
Some years ago I was reading an article in my Modern Railways magazine from the “Insider” about the loss of a knowledgeable civil service (specifically railways). This was caused due to the elimination of a pay increase, except when moving to a different department. I do not know if this is still the case but it could explain the total confusion with HS2, and trade agreements.
The civil service has a bizarre habit of moving people between jobs every two years or so. They frequently know little of the issue into which they are moved. Just as they become competent they are moved again. Tax is usually excepted from this.
As the whole fiasco with John Bercow reveled, there is something that is wrong with the civil service. Parliamentary staff are as much part of the civil service as Whitehall employees.
It doesn’t seem right that the UK government had to hire private consultants to do the administration work for the DExEU. All the regular household names were invited along for the ride.
There doesn’t seem to be any procedure or set of rules that determine how someone should be expected to behave.
I was a kid in Barbara Castles’s Ministry of Transport special advisory unit of economists and various science -based disciplines . The argument was that the senior civil service were all gifted amateur generalists who didnt have the specific expertise to run a modern technology- based society..
The world hasnt changed much. There was a definite feeling that civil service departments tended to have their own policies and default ways of looking at the world. In other words as Richard says they were political and are still political.
But the idea of not only getting rid of expertise, but the government bringing in a layer of ‘yes men’ – seems just another step on the road to authoritarianism, and a one-party state.
Very sound analysis with which I agree wholeheartedly. On the question of SPADs I wonder who pays for them ? Hopefully not the public purse? Should be funded by the political party concerned…
It is the public purse