UK civil service tweet - done on purpose?

[CoRhona]

The official account of the civil service tweeted this earlier, widely thought to be about Boris' defence of Dominic Cimmings:

"Arrogant and offensive
Can you imagine having to work with these truth twisters?"

I think some poor sod has tweeted from the 'work' account instead of their own.

DH thinks it was done on purpose.

YABU - it most definitely was done on purpose

YANBU - Ooops...

jassy and over this is why I am a hypocrite. I fully empathise with the writer of the tweet and admire their chutzpah whilst knowing I could never have the balls to do it, even if I knew it would never be traced back. The stress would finish me. I do share their views and know that a great deal of my colleagues also do, but the only way we can deal with it is by trying to influence policy proposals in a positive way. I'm not SCS though, couple of grades off that.

I do share their views and know that a great deal of my colleagues also do, but the only way we can deal with it is by trying to influence policy proposals in a positive way.

There’s no shame or hypocrisy in that. We all have our views and limits, and some roles will expose you more closely to that than others.

Trying to make sure policy is based on evidence, that it won’t have unintended consequences, that it will stand the test of time is good and honourable work.

I dearly love, respect and feel for my colleagues in the civil service. I miss it so much.

NetofLemons
Sorry to say this but seems like ‘disagree? Do the noble thing and resign’ does not seem to be the way anymore. In a world completely transformed by social media, I still don’t see why someone shouldn’t make a difference when they can. Yes they will get the sack. But I can bet my right hand that they will be immediately hired should they need a job. JK Rowling already offered a year’s worth of pay. If the only way out is also the way up for both your conscience and your pay check (considering the less number of hours they will be working now), only a fool will not take the option.

@Experimenopause I guess it depends on the belief you have in the broader system and the importance of an impartial civil service. And what the difference you think you’d be making - a single political ripple, a one-week wonder? Would it change anything positively? Or would it help to splinter the trust of politicians in the civil servants in their departments? It’s fragile enough after the last five years. Would it make it harder for your colleagues left behind you to do their jobs?

I wouldn’t want to give ammunition to those who want civil service reform to lead to a more American-style model with more political appointees.

JassyRadlett
Boris is already acting like Trump. He also has people like Cummings in his wings who are not afraid of lying through their teeth and changing their statement. They have played the public and used social media to their full advantage in achieving goals. It will be a shame to not use that same power against them.
I do not think it was a ripple. People like Cummings think they are invincible and are very smart; he has been openly criticising civil servants (remember that job advert he created?) and the system behind them.
It really is not that diplomatic anymore, is it?

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree; my view is that this sort of tweet gives ammunition to Cummings, rather than hurting him in the long run.

It was done on purpose, but it would also actually be a sackable thing to do (from my understanding) if done from a personal account.

I agree JassyRadlett this tweet undermines democracy and encourages politicians to follow DC attitude to the civil service. I find it quite shocking the number of people on here who want an unelected organisation to overturn an elected government. A non-military coup.

It was done on purpose, but it would also actually be a sackable thing to do (from my understanding) if done from a personal account.

Yes. Anything that calls your impartiality into question. There are different levels of political restriction in the CS, but communications staff are generally in the more restricted category because of the nature of their work.

That said, most workplaces have conduct rules about not criticising your workplace on social media.

That said, most workplaces have conduct rules about not criticising your workplace on social media.

Quite. I wouldn’t employ someone who behaved like this and I doubt many organisations would either.

AndNone I think most of us have, more or less often, fought hard for the more sensible and humane policy option and then had to implement the one we don’t prefer. And I do, personally, think there is a place for the stinging public resignation letter or tweet, as a one-off if your personal integrity has been publicly called into question.

But otherwise, there are lots of less political roles, and ways to avoid working on policies you truly disagree with, and that’s what I have done. Which may also make me a hypocrite, but when I look at some of the stuff I’ve helped make happen, then I feel I’ve definitely had a (albeit tiny) positive impact over the years.

over yes, you're right. There are a number of roles I would never apply for because the existing policy directives don't sit well with me and they are unlikely to change in the short to medium term (DWP being one example). I worked on the development and implememtation of the Rose primary curriculum and was so proud of that work, but when it was pulled overnight it was the most frustrating thing. There are certain things for which I can never forgive particular politicians too, nobody likes to hear on the news that your organisation is closing before you have been told yourself. I think the tweet was probably a moment of intense frustration rather than the intentional public regulation (comms staff would presumably be more mindful of how it would be perceived by future employers) but I doubt we will ever know.

Aesopfable
No one is overturning the elected government by a tweet. It is a way of protesting and making that protest so public that a discussion starts. Yes, it will make the civil service a target for the likes of Cummings but are they not already? But the positive side is, there will be a lot more people now, like me, who will now look into this and will try read more about it and will write to their MPs to demand information and transparency. There will be more investigative journalists who will want to pick this up because this tweet made it all a very hot topic and brought this discussion into the MSM.
So I do think it is a postive thing. Yes, they have probably got the sack this morning. But there is no way they will stay jobless. And now everyone is asking questions, at a time when people like Cummings are already under pressure. So it’s good timing took

There are a number of roles I would never apply for because the existing policy directives don't sit well with me and they are unlikely to change in the short to medium term
That means there will be a vacuum. Why is that better than getting in there and raising your voice when needed? You can influence from inside. What will do you if you don’t even get in there?

That means there will be a vacuum. Why is that better than getting in there and raising your voice when needed? You can influence from inside. What will do you if you don’t even get in there?

The civil service isn’t an amorphous blob. Civil servants have different politics, different interests, different beliefs and different motivations. There is no vacuum.

You can influence from inside.

This is also a dangerous idea; there is a difference between presenting the facts and seeking to influence - the difference between impartiality and bias. It is the difference shown when you have the permanent secretary for education being a Stonewall Champion resulting in illegal guidance being sent out to schools removing the rights of girls rather than following the law as laid down by parliament.

I couldn't live with myself imposing sanctions on people for spurious reasons. That level of policy change isn't going to happen within this parliament and so for me the best thing for my conscience is not to do that job. I disagree with the overall policy direction of the department I work in about one main area, but know that it isn't such fixed ideology that evidence based advice can't change the course direction of travel. I can live with that. I definitely did not want to be part of the Brexit response and seconded to another department for different reasons (my grade would have meant that my name would be on documents that would become public record, if I disagreed with what I was working on I didn't want to be identified and have people take a false impression of me) so I stayed put. You may think that is cowardice and maybe it is. I have volunteered for the Covid response team and been seconded to work in my department's beleaguered rapid response unit, because it is a national emergency. Everyone has differing motivations for work within the CS.

Experi The danger of influencing from the inside is one reason why civil servants tend to move around a lot. It avoids capture by special interest groups, at least for more niche areas. Long serving policy experts are in danger of becoming a mouthpiece for their particular lobby groups, rather than a source of evidence-based and balanced advice. Which is something we want to avoid, both in terms of making good policy and because it reduces the credibility of the civil service overall.

There is no vacuum.
There is no vacuum right now may be (I doubt the blanket statement). But then there is the very really danger now of Cummings et al. interfering to make sure a vacuum or rather a structure appears out of this amorphous blob, a structure that favours Cummings and Johnson.

But then there is the very really danger now of Cummings et al. interfering to make sure a vacuum or rather a structure appears out of this amorphous blob, a structure that favours Cummings and Johnson.

Indeed. They can use ‘evidence’ that the civil service is not acting in the interests of the public / serving elected politicians impartially to help them with this.

But that wasn’t the question I was answering. The suggestion was that, because an individual civil servant didn’t fee she could work at DWP because the policies didn’t align with her personal values, there would be a vacuum at that department. That suggestion is incorrect because the CS isn’t an amorphous blob, so people shouldn’t feel obliged to take jobs they would dislike and feel uncomfortable about simply to try to change things from within.

Quite apart from the fact that the idea of civil servants planning their careers to try to undermine the manifesto promises of elected governments is the antithesis of the ethos of the CS, and should be fairly abhorrent to people who support democratic systems - even if we think the incumbents are dreadful.

Quite apart from the fact that the idea of civil servants planning their careers to try to undermine the manifesto promises of elected governments
But then how would you feel if the manifesto was based on lies and you knew it was lies and you didn’t do anything to bring it out in open?
We are not in usual times. It’s a situation of a life time or even rarer than that. I do feel torn between your argument and my own. I will keep thinking over it.

But then how would you feel if the manifesto was based on lies and you knew it was lies and you didn’t do anything to bring it out in open? We are not in usual times. It’s a situation of a life time or even rarer than that. I do feel torn between your argument and my own. I will keep thinking over it.

Have you ever worked in the civil service just out of interest? Apologies if I've missed and you have already said.

But then how would you feel if the manifesto was based on lies and you knew it was lies and you didn’t do anything to bring it out in open?

That’s where good, trusted policy making is vital. Good impact analysis, internal challenge, good evidence, well designed trials and pilots.

And if it’s a whistleblowing situation, you use the whistleblowing processes.

That said, manifestos are generally a gathering of flannelly promises - but it’s those promises on which governments are elected. It’s the role of the civil service to fine ways to implement those promises.

We are not in usual times. It’s a situation of a life time or even rarer than that. I do feel torn between your argument and my own. I will keep thinking over it.

Ultimately, I left the civil service last year because I could not reconcile the values of the government of the day with my own. These are very unusual items, as you say. Before this, I had worked on all manner of things I disagreed with, and thought they were wrong-headed, but I knew my skills could help them work better for the people we are trying to serve. I suspect that’s the case for most civil servants.

I spent all this last weekend wishing I was still there so I could make a stand by resigning. I’m furious about the utter disregard with which this government is treating the public and the institutions of government.

But when I left, I didn’t think making it easier for the most important aspects of the civil service in terms of expert, impartial support to government, would be beneficial. Short term gratification and dent to the government, but long term not helpful.

In a democracy, the mechanisms for dealing with a manifesto based on lies are a free press and an effective opposition. The civil service is there to tell Ministers when they’ve promised something impossible, illegal or unwise, and to create policy options that will deliver (at least some of) their original objective without being any of those things. That’s where the civil service acts - quietly and without a fuss making sure laws are followed, impact assessments are done for different groups of people and acted upon and uncomfortable facts are presented.

Have you ever worked in the civil service just out of interest? Apologies if I've missed and you have already said.
No. That’s why I keep asking questions and trying to get my head around it all. I have utmost respect for people working for us on such low pays and in these conditions. And I fully understand how hard it must be to work with dickheads like Cummings and Johnson. That should get you a medal in itself.
Why do you ask?