Labour have corrupted the Civil Service
Dear Civil Service,
Accusations of creeping politicisation within your organisation have been around for quite a while. Peter Oborne and others have expressed their concern at the increasingly questionable role that you perform for the Labour government, particularly in terms of your dwindling independence and authority. What shocks me is the fact that your overtly political actions are now so commonplace that people don’t even seem to notice.
The Times reported yesterday on comments made by Ken Clarke about George Osborne, which were secretly recorded at a private Westminster meeting. He apparently warned Osborne against “getting too adventurous” in plans for public spending cuts before the next general election and that some voters could be scared away from the Conservatives if it was too specific about tax and spending plans. “You could then wind up with a very messy outcome,” he said. Clarke also found time to praise George for having been “very bold” in giving examples of the austerity measures that would be taken by a Conservative government. These included promises to raise the pension age to 66, remove tax credits for the better-off and freeze public sector pay for most workers. On Tuesday, however, Clarke said: “I think it is very difficult to have a sensible argument. You are running enormous risks — we have not had an election like this before.” Although emphasising that most people knew that the level of public debt was “disgraceful and unsustainable”, he said: “The population is only keen on tough measures so long as they don’t affect them and their families.”
Nothing untoward there, in my opinion. However, what left me in a state of disbelief was the following passage from The Times article:
“The Treasury published detailed official analysis [my emphasis] of 22 Conservative tax and spending proposals yesterday in response to a Freedom of Information request. Although many of these related to out-of-date information, Labour claimed that others revealed policies that would cost the taxpayer more than £10 billion a year.”
Can you please explain to me what the flying **** you are doing conducting ‘detailed official analysis’ of an opposition party’s tax and spending plans?! You are the Civil Service, for christs sake, not the bloody Smith Institute. How dare you use taxpayers’ money to conduct what can only be described as politically motivated research. Your role, which you have clearly forgotten, is to support the government of the day in implementing their plans, no matter how crackpot, flawed, stupid, pointless or worthless they are. You are entitled to some degree to help steer government policy, but that aside your role is nothing more than a supporting one – do what needs to be done to get the government’s policies underway. You are not, I repeat NOT, allowed to engage in political matters due to the express need for you to remain impartial as an organisation. Since when it is appropriate for the Treasury, one of the most important institutions in the country, to start worrying about what opposition parties are up to? What possible relevance do Conservative and Lib Dem policies have for the Treasury when overseeing the stability and growth within the UK economy? Hmmm? What makes you think that there is anything remotely ‘impartial’ about feeding the government with such politically sensitive information?
If the Labour Party wants to look at what the opposition parties are up to, fine, let Labour HQ get on with it, I couldn’t care less, but for you to just roll over and do whatever your Labour Master bids without even demonstrating the slightest hint of integrity or credibility is deeply disturbing. No wonder you are now held in such contempt by people inside and outside of Westminster. The Civil Service code states that you:
- must serve the Government, whatever its political persuasion, to the best of your ability in a way which maintains political impartiality
- must not act in a way that is determined by party political considerations, or use official resources for party political purposes; or allow your personal political views to determine any advice you give or your actions
- must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests
- use resources only for the authorised public purposes for which they are provided
- misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others
- make sure public money and other resources are used properly and efficiently
May I suggest a little revision is in order?
Yours contemptfully,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Bloody Brilliant! I would add, however, that in this present administrations’ tax and bankrupt plans, £10 billion is little more than a rounding error.
With respect, I think you’ve got this one wrong. As a former Whitehall Civil Servant, I have some experience in this area – in the 18 months or so leading up to a general election the Civil Service begins to pay some serious attention to the policies of the opposition. This is not a dubious thing – it is part of the the Service’s duties and has been going on for at least a century. This is so that the new government is able to hit the ground running (a classic fictional example is in the first ever episode of Yes, Minister – where Hacker is astonished to find his department with fully fledged policies on day one).
So there is nothing remotely sinister about the Civil Service analysing Tory policy proposals – indeed, it would be derelict in its duties were it not to. If a FoI request is subsequently made, then, as matters of national security are not at issue, the Treasury would be legally bound to release them.
What would be quite wrong would be for the Civil Service to tell ministers in secret ‘this is what those idiot Tories are up to’. And, as far as I’m aware, this is not what happened. Once the papers were made public, of course Labour would pounce on the negative bits. But I cannot see that anything even slightly untoward has happened here. The only difference with the past is that the Freedom of Information Act has made public what has been going on quite consistently, but out of the media glare, since the days of Northcote and Trevelyan.
Not to say, of course, that Labour has not done damage to the Civil Service – it has – but this story is certainly not evidence of it.
Hear hear!
“What would be quite wrong would be for the Civil Service to tell ministers in secret ‘this is what those idiot Tories are up to’. And, as far as I’m aware, this is not what happened. “
Of course it wasn’t. Dear boy.
HB, nice try but you’ll have to do better than that. The requests were made going as far back as August 2005 – does that sound close to the next general election to you? I think not. In fact, an election had just happened.
The full list of disclosures are as follows:
Education credit for disabled
10% equity share of social tenants leaving the sector
Abolition of Regional Development Agencies
Abolition of Stamp Duty on Shares
Annual audit of public sector disability equality schemes
Free fruit for all school children
New health watchdog
Home school support champion for disadvantage primary schools
Increasing the maximum working credit for couples with children
Work obligations for lone parents
Maternity nursing support in the home for every new mother
National volunteering programme for 650,000 school leavers
No stamp duty land tax up to £250,000 for first time buyers 100% compensation on PPF levels for those who have lost their pensions
Personnel investment fund for disadvantaged primary schools Prisons & Probation
New regulator of independant health providers
Reversing small business tax rises in 2007 budget
School nurse for every school
Consolidation of disability benefits regime
Support through childcare element of the working tax credit where grandparents provide childcare
Transferable personal tax allowances from wife to husband
Now, are you seriously suggesting that this information is all critical for the Treasury and for a future change of government (in some cases potentially up to five years in advance)? This information was collected well in advance of an election to inform the government about the likely success of each of these opposition policies and in some cases the Treasury analysis looks remarkably like policies that Labour have since implemented themselves. This is party political business, this is clearly not necessary for the handover of government and is thus a breach of the Civil Service code.
Scary. (I think!)
Corrupted the whole country,and every thing they touch,it is the nature of the Beast.
@Highveld Brit –
‘this is what those idiot Tories are up to’ For a retired Civil Servant, rather an unfortunate choice of words, don’t you think? Whatever your own opinion, a more emollient phrasing would have been in keeping with your professed background.
@Highveld Brit:
Do you think that a FOI request for similar analysis of all Labours tax proposals/ideas over the last 4-5 years would be agreed to? I don’t think so.
Pigs would fly before you’d get that info out. It would all be refused under the grounds of National Interest, confidentiality etc etc.
So why do you think that they agreed to make the info on the Tories proposals available? Party political bias by any chance?
This is what is expected from the civil service. I really don’t understand why they have such an affinity to the Labour party. They did not seem to resist the moves to politicise the service in any meaningful way which has left a great many labour ‘placemen’ in responsible positions.
They must have reaised that the Labour gpvernment could not last forever, so holding back the tide would be impossible. I wonder if the civil service may become the Labour party’s ‘army’ wing in opposition.
Tony, Labour’s project to create a class of people who are government clients can only lead to this situation. People working for the public sector will vote to keep their pay, perks and pensions. People being bribed with their own money (‘tax credits’) and the insistence that people should suckle at the teat of the state further extends this class. With fewer people working in the private sector than for the state, directly or indirectly, Labour has a big pool of people financially dependant on it.
THIS is what Dave will have to face. Breaking this infantilisation of the public and the mass grip of the public sector on employment will be the defining battle of his premiership, regardless of what else may happen. Thatcher had to take on union power. Dave will have to take on the entrenched interests of Labours public sector and benefits class.
Grumpy Old Man – my comment was an example of the kind of language I would find disgraceful coming from the Civil Servant…
LFOT
You are right that not all these topics relate to a future government. But from everything I’ve been able to find (correct me if I’m wrong), they also relate to parliamentary questions tabled by MPs (often from opposition parties) asking the government for the impact of the opposition policies. To take one example: you cite the abolition of stamp duty for properties over 250,000. You’re completely right that the Treasury did this work. But it was in response to a question tabled in parliament on 29 June 2006 by Vince Cable. Civil Servants are constitutionally bound to prepare answers for such questions. Are you saying they shouldn’t be? No doubt there are other questions tabled by Labour MPs deliberately to elicit embarrassing information about the Tory proposals – but that is hardly the fault of the Civil Service.
I am in no way here to defend the Labour government, which has done serious damage to the Civil Service – however, Civil Service analysis of opposition policies happens. It happens in advance of elections, it happens in response to requests from Parliament. There is nothing wrong with it, it has been going on for decades. Indeed, it should continue. I have yet to see any suggestion that the Civil Service acts in a way to damage the opposition through this analysis. You may laugh – but I would like to see some evidence.
@Highveld Brit –
I apologise- I misunderstood your intentions.
Wow, you changed your tune pretty quickly once I’d thrown out the ‘Preparing for a change of government’ line!
How about the fact that Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was quoted immediately after the snippet that I included in my letter?: “No wonder Ken wants George Osborne to shut up. Every day we learn more about how the Tories cannot afford their tax and spending plans … Ken Clarke must be weeping into his beer.”
According to you, a Labour minister being slipped information on the sly about, say, an upcoming FOI request that embarrasses the Conservatives, would be “quite wrong” – but Liam was remarkably quick off the mark, wasn’t he! Sadly, we don’t know who the FOI request came from originally. That said, the Conservatives had no idea it was coming while Liam seemed rather well prepared for it…..
There is also Jim’s astute point that this information was happily released by the Civil Service, yet I too have a sneaking suspicion that requests for government policy analysis may not be met with such a positive response. Would you agree with that?
Changing my tune? Surely I was merely introducing a second theme on the violins?
Seriously, though, I stand by everything I said in my first comment (because it’s true), but, when you rightly pointed out that it was not sufficient explanation for all the disclosures, I pointed out another completely legitimate area for Civil Service involvement in opposition policy. My two points are in no way mutually exclusive.
As for Liam Byrne being quick of the mark – well the whole FoI request has Labour’s grubby fingerprints all over it, so it’s hardly a surprise that he was well briefed. He wouldn’t need any Civil Service help on that.
You say that the information was ‘happily’ released by the Civil Service (why ‘happily’? is some information ‘unhappily’ released?), while similar information to embarrass Labour would remain secret. Well, it’s impossible ever to know – but I would point out that the Tories have been remarkable successful at using the FoIA to embarrass the government, and it’s an open secret that many Labour ministers despair that the Act was ever passed. If you look back after the last five years or so, the number of FoI releases that have caused Labour trouble vastly outnumber those that have pained the Tories (simply by dint of Labour being in government).
The Civil Service is not longer a service, or is it very civil either in much of its activity. In the wreck of our constitution, parliament, legal system et al the effective disbandment of the Civil Service is the thing that is likely to finish us off. Because nothing is administered properly and there is no longer accountablility.
Hiveld is demonstrating a skill we have nurtured, with money and titles, in the Civil Service since the founding of the foreign office centuries ago: old school arse-covering.
Take it on at your peril but I assure you, it will provide and object lesson for any youngsters reading this blog! By the time he’s done he’ll prove you were never even here to read the comments you may have mis-interpreted.
This should be fun
Mr Pilkington
Ah, you flatter me, you really do. If only I were able to prove the things you say. Being a most ‘umble civil servant (even of the ex- variety), however, I must content myself with throwing a few facts into the debate, taking cover, and waiting to see what happens. As it happens, I have a great respect for what LFAT has to say – as I said, he was perfectly right to say that my first comment did not adequately cover the point he was making. In return, I would just say that no-one has been able to show here that the Civil Service was acting improperly. The Civil Service is not perfect, and it certainly houses a number of bad apples (and which organisation doesn’t?), but the charges made on this particular occasion do not, in my view, stack up.
In brief, given the choice between blaming Labour and blaming the Civil Service, I know which one I’d choose.
@Highveld Brit – would it be wrong to highlight this as being, what’s called in the trade, ‘buried under nuance’?
j/k o/
Surely ‘in the trade’ it’s called fabulous gold-standard rhetoric of the best Blighty can offer. No?
But, okay, file it under ‘buried under nuance’ if you like….
@Highveld Brit – ta.
It’s the difference in nomenclature between, say, the class of a drug (stimulant), the type of drug (modafinil), and the trade name – ProVigil, designed to heighten sales.
My initial remark was that this IS gold standard arse coverage with a 200+ year pedigree so, seriously, you can stop selling now!