to think civil servants should be easily sackable for misconduct?

[LargeDeviation]

Apparently one of the Dominic Raab bullying incidents in the foreign office went like this:

Negotiations over Gibraltar border arrangements

Raab to Ambassador: no Spanish troops on Gibraltar under any circumstances.
Ambassador to Spanish diplomats: Spainsh border troops will be allowed permanently on Gibraltar
Other British diplomats to Spanish diplomats: No Spanish border troops will be allowed on Gibraltar
Spain: WTF
Raab to Ambassador: Why did you say what you did? I issued a very clear ministerial directive?
Ambassador to Raab: [unclear response]
Raab to Ambassador: erupts in seething rage

Now the last step is what was wrong, and what was classified as bullying (though it's not clear exactly what happened).

However, if the account is true, then surely the ambassador has committed gross professional misconduct, trying to give away British sovereignty in direct contrast to a ministerial decision? To me going against the explicit instructions of your boss on such an important matter would be a sackable offence in pretty much any line of work - and yet it seems he's still the ambassador to Spain to this day.

As I've said on a previous thread, it's unclear whether Raab was actually a bully or not - the report makes it clear that at the least he was overly rude and demeaning. It's fairly obvious he was not effective, which to me is a genuine reason to get rid of him irrespective of the bullying.

However I see the civil service acting this way with impunity as an even bigger scandal.

That you Mrs Raab?

Hi Dominic, bit of a loose end today?

"The moment the investigation into Raab’s bullying was announced I tweetedthat I expected many more civil servants to come forward with complaints. I’ve rarely been more confident about a prediction because, like everyone who hangs around Whitehall, I knew Raab’s reputation. His behaviour had been an open secret for years. The high turnover in his private office was a matter of record as were the higher than normal salaries offered to officials to work with him (“danger money” as more than one described it to me)."

from Sam Freedman's sub stack today.

The report found 2 instances of bullying.

Unless you've read all the evidence and interviewed all relevant people I'm not sure why you'd decide you have a clearer picture of events than Tolley?

He’s a big stupid bully. Overpromoted beyond his limited abilities and compensated by using intimidation

However, if the account is true

Yes but the issue is that it's Dominic Raab's account and many, many people have said that he 'erupts with rage' over fuck all.

You can sack civil servants for gross misconduct, so if this account is (partly) true then I'm sure that particular ambassador completely screwed his career with that fuck up.

I don't see how that in any way gives a reason to keep and arogant, angry, petty, ineffective little man as deputy prime minister.

As I said, I think Raab should go for being ineffective. I consider him stupid, vain and rude.

However, I am quite amazed that so many people think it's OK for civil servants to go against explicit ministerial policy.

Perhaps it's because you disagree with the specific policy or intensely dislike Raab or the Tories - but surely any fairminded person would say that an impartial civil servant should not directly contradict ministerial instructions?

Whoops totally misread that - please ignore!

Ambassadors can't give away sovereignty. If they offer something in a negotiation beyond their mandate cleared by ministers or Cabinet all that happens is they look a bit of a pillock when they have to backtrack.

@donquixotedelamancha Yes, if Raab's making it up (which is quite possible given how narcissistic he is) then the question is moot.

However, it should be easy to establish the facts here. If the ambassador said to Spain that border troops can be on Gibraltar then he should have been sacked.

@EuripidesEumenides Could you give more details about the process if you know?

Well, I guess there will be a reason why they haven't sacked him.

Nothing you've written indicates they can't - just that they haven't.

Dominic quit posting.

OK - unless I’m very thick, the OP is NOT saying Raab is wronged or the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Rather, she is raising an important point about the civil service. Which is hard to discuss because of people accusing her of being Dominic Raab, and it’s a bit tedious, tbh.

It would be perfectly acceptable for the ambassador to say something like ´Would the presence of Spanish police on the UK side of the border help to resolve our current impasse?´(as I think is the case with French douane in Dover?), which might have helped moved discussion along. Raab´s red-line of no permanent presence of Spanish troops would not have been affected.

Depends on the specific context but generally and roughly officials will get a mandate signed off by their junior minister, secretary of state or Cabinet (depending on the significance) setting out in broad terms what they want to achieve and what they are willing to concede.

Officials will try to get negotiations as far along as they can and either get a ready made deal for the minister to sign or at least sort most of the technical points and the overall shape of agreement sorted and leave any outstanding political points for the minister to negotiate with their counterpart.

Mandates are often not black and white though. It's also not too rare for an official to use their judgement to go beyond their mandate for the sake of getting the best overall deal they think they can get. But such an "agreement" would only ever be provisional and it's not unheard of for an official to have to come back with their tail between their legs and backtrack when their Capital says no. It's not great but it happens.

Thank you @Restforabit . Yes I am making no comment (here) on whether Raab is a bully or not. I think he was correct to resign for many reasons, and should have resigned or been sacked earlier.

But the civil service can only work if it actively tries to implement what ministers want. Overall it seems that the civil service is really ineffective. As a whole it seems to severely lack quantitative/data analysis skills in order to facilitate good decisions, and seems to value process much more than outcomes.

However being ineffective is one thing; doing the direct opposite of what you are instructed to do is quite another.

I am amazed that people find it OK.

I would be just as annoyed if e.g. a Labour foreign secretary said that an Israeli counterattack after a Hamas attack should be diplomatically condemned, and instead the ambassador to Israel praised it. This is despite me disagreeing with this (hypothetical) policy.

Having worked in the civil service, civil servants including senior ones, are as sackable as any other type of employee. V senior members tend to get moved sideways or agree to resign for "personal reasons" rather than outright sacked, but believe me, they go.

"Rather, she is raising an important point about the civil service."

Well that's not true either.

There is no evidence that they can't sack him.

They just haven't chosen to.

Many Civil Service jobs are open to anyone to apply for, if you think you can do it better.

Second perm sec at FCDO

The CS also has excellent quantitative and analytical skills in its members and has separate streams for its economists and statisticians, but if I had a pound for every time a policy lead or minister rejected or overrode evidence advice, I'd be a rich woman...

@HappyHolidai I wouldn't ever work in the civil service - the pay cut would be horrendous, and it seems like an organisation which adores process and despises performance and outcomes, which is the direct opposite of what I want in a career.

Civil servants don't have a job for life. That kind of life vanished by the end of the 80s. If someone has messed up, they will have to suffer the consequences. The vast majority of whom are paid less than £25K and are working extremely hard to deliver their objectives no matter what they may vote for privately. It is beyond insulting and they can't fight back.

Yes, it's funny how many people who say how much better the Civil Service would be if they ran it wouldn't lower themselves to actually work there.

I did for 10 years. It has its positives and negatives as do all jobs.