When will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs?

After the general election last July, The Guardian ran a column written by an anonymous Whitehall employee. Its headline was: 'After years of being gaslit by government, we civil servants can breathe again under Labour'. And, underneath, its author revealed that many of his or her colleagues were overjoyed about the Tories' defeat.
One unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: 'I've never been so glad to see the back of a government.' Another gurgled: 'I feel professionally revitalised knowing that the adults are in charge.'
Less than a year on, however, it seems that the mood in Whitehall isn't quite so euphoric. Some mandarins are finding that 'the adults' aren't to their taste, either. Or so I infer from the following story about the Foreign Office.
Last month, more than 300 civil servants signed a letter to David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary. It questioned the continued sale of arms to Israel, accused the Government of contributing to 'the erosion of global norms', and complained about what its signatories saw as a 'stark… disregard for international law'.
Now they've received a reply. But it probably isn't the one they were hoping for. Because Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, has written them a letter of his own – calmly explaining that, if they don't like the Government's policy on this or any other issue, they know where the door is. 'If your disagreement with any aspect of Government policy or action is profound,' he writes, 'your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service'.
This is an admirably courteous way of putting it. Because he could very easily have gone for: 'Who the hell do you jumped-up busybodies think you are? You're civil servants, for crying out loud. Obeying the Government's orders is your literal job, whether you like it or not. The Government was elected. You weren't. So if you want to hang on to that gold-plated pension, you'll do what you're told and shut up.'
Personally, I wish he had put it as bluntly as that. It's not often that I feel compelled to defend Sir Keir and co. But, like any administration, they deserve to know that Whitehall is there to serve them, not undermine them with letters of sanctimonious complaint. Which is why I feel we're entitled to ask: when will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs?
At any rate, Labour party members must be in a panic. They'll be thinking: 'It was bad enough when we lost the support of the working class. But if we've lost the support of the lanyard class, we really are toast.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

33 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Badenoch: BBC should not show ‘extremist' Kneecap at Glastonbury

Kemi Badenoch said the BBC should not broadcast Kneecap 'propaganda' at Glastonbury Festival next week. The Tory leader said on X that the BBC 'should not be rewarding extremism' by showing the Irish republican rap group's set. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a Kneecap member, appeared in court accused of displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. Reacting to a story in The Times that claimed the BBC had not banned the group from its Glastonbury coverage, Mrs Badenoch tweeted: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' Mrs Badenoch has previously called for the group to be banned from Glastonbury. And last year, Kneecap won a discrimination case against the Government in Belfast High Court after Mrs Badenoch tried to refuse them a £14,250 funding award when she was a minister. Kneecap took aim at Mrs Badenoch in their latest single, The Recap, released just before their headline set at London's Wide Awake festival in May. The song mocked her attempts to block their arts funding and the Conservative Party's general election loss. On Wednesday, Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin and J Ó Dochartaigh at Westminster magistrates' court in 'Free Mo Chara' T-shirts. During the proceedings, the court heard the 27-year-old is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on Israel and Palestine, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, is a 'wholly different thing'. Ó hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing at the same court on Aug 20. Following the hearing, the rapper said: 'For anybody going to Glastonbury, you can see us there at 4pm on the Saturday. 'If you can't be there we'll be on the BBC, if anybody watches the BBC. We'll be at Wembley in September. 'But most importantly: free, free Palestine.' The charge came after a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly shows the group calling for the deaths of MPs. In April, Kneecap apologised last month to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised'. In an initial post in response to the charge, Kneecap said: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves, this is political policing, this is a carnival of distraction. 'We are not the story, genocide is, as they profit from genocide, they use an 'anti-terror law' against us for displaying a flag thrown on stage. A charge not serious enough to even warrant their crown court, instead a court that doesn't have a jury. What's the objective? 'To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' A BBC spokesman said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC will be bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'While the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines. Decisions about our output will be made in the lead-up to the festival.'

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

Ex-army chief Lord Dannatt lobbied ministers for millions to support commercial deal

A member of the House of Lords lobbied the government to get financial support worth millions of pounds for a commercial deal he was steering, documents reveal. It is the second time that Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British army, has potentially broken parliamentary rules that forbid lobbying. He is under investigation by the House of Lords authorities over a separate set of allegations, following undercover filming by the Guardian. The new documents reveal Lord Dannatt personally pressed ministers and a senior official to give political and financial backing to a venture he was chairing that was seeking to buy a Cheshire factory from a US owner in 2022. After the owner announced they intended to shut it down, Dannatt increased the pressure, urging the government to help. The crossbench peer made three key approaches. First, he contacted a minister he knew, asking for an introduction to the minister who was best placed to make the decision. Second, he sent an email pressing a civil servant to set up a meeting. 'My intervention is to elevate the discussion to ministerial level,' he wrote. Less than two weeks later, Dannatt and an executive behind the bid met Lee Rowley, the relevant business minister, to push for government backing. At issue is whether Dannatt broke the House of Lords rules that bar peers from lobbying ministers and officials in return for payment or financial incentive. Dannatt said he was not paid for engaging with the government. He said he helped a friend, a leading businessperson in the consortium, attempt to buy the factory as he believed it would save jobs and help the country. 'Put simply, I was helping a friend achieve an outcome very much in the national interest,' he said. Dannatt later received four payments during the period he was chairing the venture. He described these as 'honorarium' payments, but would not say how much he received. He was also the public face and 'chairman' of the 'embryonic' venture. Dannatt said his name and position added credibility to the discussions with the US company. 'I am not sure how else a retired four-star general who sits in the House of Lords could be described to the Americans,' he said, but he had agreed to take the title despite there being 'no board to chair, no meetings to attend or other business to conduct'. His involvement with the consortium, which was ultimately unsuccessful in its bid, ended in February 2023. Dannatt has been under investigation by the House of Lords authorities since March after the Guardian revealed he had offered to secure meetings with ministers for undercover reporters pretending to be commercial clients wanting to lobby the government. He had been secretly filmed telling the undercover reporters he could make introductions within the government and that he would 'make a point of getting to know' the best-placed minister. He is being investigated by the House of Lords commissioner for standards, the watchdog who scrutinises claims of wrongdoing in the upper chamber. Dannatt, 74, has previously denied the allegations, saying: 'I am well aware of … the Lords code of conduct … I have always acted on my personal honour.' He is one of five peers to face conduct inquiries after a months-long investigation by the Guardian. The Lords debate project examined the commercial interests of members of the House of Lords amid concerns their activities were not being properly regulated. It revealed that 91 peers had been paid by commercial companies to give political or policy advice. The new documents regarding Dannatt's communications with the government in June 2022 were disclosed under freedom of information legislation. At the time Dannatt was fronting a group of investors who wanted to buy a fertiliser factory in Cheshire. CF Industries, the US owners, planned to permanently close the factory after energy prices made it unprofitable. The consortium of investors argued that their proposal would save 500 jobs and keep important products used in the agriculture and hospitality industries within the UK. On 10 June 2022, Dannatt emailed a junior business minister he knew, asking if he could tell him who was the minister with responsibility for this area. 'If you could point me in the right direction, ideally with an introduction, and I can take it from there.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion He promoted his UK-based consortium as a better 'economic and political alternative' to the closure of the factory. 'The alternative scenario is that a hedge fund buys the factory, sells off its assets and exits with a profit, allowing 500 workers to become redundant, the UK dependent on imported CO2 and no increase in fertiliser production thus the price remaining high.' An introduction to the right minister was made. Six days later, the peer emailed a senior official in the business department, saying: 'I am aware that [Dannatt's friend] has been talking with officials but my intervention is to elevate the discussion to ministerial level. There are some quite key issues at stake here relating to jobs in the north-west and the price of some key commodities.' On 27 June, Dannatt and Mark Law, his friend who was also leading the consortium, met Rowley, then a minister in the business department. The Financial Times has previously reported that the consortium sought a government loan of up to £10m to help restart the factory. The government refused, arguing that it was purely a commercial matter. The consortium later collapsed. Dannatt said he had not had any formal arrangements or contract with the consortium, nor had he discussed with Law what his future role might have been if they had managed to buy the factory. 'My motivation and purpose was to get a deal over the line, in the national interest,' he said. He said any assumption that he 'would have developed a substantive and remunerated role as chairman and taken an active role in the work of the company' was wrong. He added that if the bid had been successful, 'it would have been a very different matter'. As well as the continuing investigation by the House of Lords authorities, another watchdog has examined Dannatt's conduct. Last month, it cleared Dannatt of being paid by the consortium to lobby the government. Harry Rich, the registrar of consultant lobbyists, is responsible for investigating whether individuals have broken the law by failing to declare that they have received money from a third party to lobby ministers or Whitehall's most senior officials. However the House of Lords watchdog is considering the matter under a different set of rules which take a wider view of lobbying than the registrar of consultant lobbyists. The question now is whether, as the consortium's chair, he advocated for the venture on the understanding that he could at some point benefit personally. This could be a breach of the Lords rules. Dannatt has passed his correspondence with the Guardian about his involvement with the consortium to the House of Lords commissioner who is investigating his conduct when speaking to undercover reporters.

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Hope for end to ‘cruel experiment' of indefinite jail terms that have seen phone thieves trapped for up to 20 years

Desperate prisoners who have been trapped in jail for up to 20 years for minor offences such as stealing a mobile phone could finally get a release date under landmark new proposals. Britain's leading justice experts have issued a string of recommendations to finally end the 'cruel experiment' of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) jail terms, which have left inmates languishing in prison for up to 22 times longer than their original sentence. A panel led by Lord John Thomas, who was once Britain's most senior judge, convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, will urge the government on Monday to take 'long overdue' action to restore hope to 2,614 inmates still trapped under the outlawed jail terms, which have been described as a 'monstrous blot' on our justice system. IPP jail terms were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence them, despite recognising the jail term was a mistake. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their lives in custody as they lost hope of being freed, with a further 37 self-inflicted deaths among those released but left living in fear of being hauled back to jail indefinitely for minor breaches of strict licence conditions. On Monday, the expert panel will set out six recommendations to the Ministry of Justice to finally give those languishing in prison a release date and end the cycle of recall. Lord Thomas told The Independent: 'We must not go on perpetuating this injustice.' The proposals would see: Every IPP prisoner given a release date at their next review by the Parole Board within a two-year window, with plans to prepare them to be safely freed Decisions to recall IPP prisoners only made as a last resort, with independent scrutiny by a district judge or senior parole board member Mental health aftercare support for every released IPP prisoner, in recognition of the harms caused by the sentence The government has said ministers will 'carefully consider' the recommendations. In the 25-page report, due to be presented at an event in parliament, Lord Thomas warns: 'It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches. 'There are only two options given the government's rejection of resentencing: (1) do nothing new and let those subject to IPPs continue with the real risk that many will languish in prison until they die; or (2) adopt our proposals. 'Our proposals provide a route to ending this grave injustice while protecting the public.' The member of the House of Lords, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017, believes the 'practical solutions' could be the last chance to help those on the jail term, which has been condemned as 'psychological torture' by the UN. Despite agreeing that the sentences are a 'terrible stain', Labour's prisons minister James Timpson has repeatedly said the government will not resentence IPP prisoners because it would result in serious offenders being released automatically without licensed supervision. Instead, the government has urged prisoners to work towards release by the Parole Board through the refreshed IPP Action Plan. However, Lord Thomas believes the measure is 'not enough' and it will leave some desperate inmates stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. He said it is 'absolutely clear' that without action, many will resign themselves to lifelong institutionalisation or take their own lives. Urging the state to take responsibility for its own mistakes, he insisted 'enough is enough', noting that if these prisoners had committed their crime a day after the sentence was abolished, they would have long been freed. 'It is time to address this problem in the way we have set out, which produces justice and minimises risk as much as possible,' added the judge, who last year backed The Independent's campaign to review IPP sentences. Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of the Howard League, described the jail term as a 'cruel experiment' that has been perpetrated upon these prisoners by accident. Even the architect of the flawed 99-year sentence, Labour's former home secretary David Blunkett, has described it as the 'biggest regret' of his career. 'I spend a lot of time visiting people in prisons, I have met people who aren't engaged in IPP forums, who have given up hope,' Ms Coomber told The Independent. 'They have settled into the idea that they are going to die in prison. That is a monstrous blot on our justice system that people would feel that justice has let them down that much.' By ensuring they would get a release date, those prisoners would re-engage with the Parole Board and the steps for their rehabilitation, she added. 'Fundamentally, it will be a way to restore hope to people who have lost all hope, while protecting the public,' she said. It will also have the 'happy side effect' of freeing up a lot of prison places as the government grapples with an overcrowding crisis, she added. In April, The Independent revealed that incarcerating IPP inmates cost taxpayers £145m in 2024, on top of an estimated £1.6bn spent since the sentence was abolished. Any cost to implementing the changes would be 'more than covered' by the savings of releasing them, the report said. Other proposals from the panel, which also comprised a retired High Court judge and vice-chair of the Parole Board, leading forensic psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, legal experts and a former IPP prisoner, would see those handed indeterminate sentences when they were children (known as DPP jail terms) given a release date within one year of their parole review. They have also called for an enhanced process for people to appeal their IPP sentence, the right for annual licence termination reviews in the community and the ability for IPP jail terms to become 'spent' after an appropriate period. Currently, those who serve an IPP sentence must disclose information about their conviction for life, which can be 'hugely stigmatising' as they try to rebuild their lives and find work, Ms Coomber said. Campaigner Shirley DeBono, whose son Shaun Lloyd has spent 14 years behind bars after multiple recalls for stealing a mobile phone in 2005, welcomed the proposed measures. 'I think it's a great idea. I urge Shabana Mahmood [justice secretary] and James Timpson to take the proposals on,' said the mother, who co-founded the IPP Committee in Action. A spokesperson for the United Group for Reform of IPP (Ungripp) said that while it will always push for a full resentencing process, it supports the measures. 'We hope that the government will seriously consider these alternatives and give back some hope to those who are in prison either on recall or who have never been released,' they added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. 'We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in any way that undermines public protection.'