Sunak's mentor was Richard Sharp, his closest political allies in his government are were Dominic Raab and Suella Braverman. With friends like these...
That's three of Sunak's initial Cabinet picks who have had to go for being terrible people (Williamson, Zahawi and now Raab).
If one is misfortune and two begins to look careless, what is three?
Making the best of whats available given the limited options available.
Remember [Boris] removed a lot of the best qualified candidates in 2019..
You mean, they removed themselves by their Commons votes to give the government's privileges in the House to Labour?
Nope, they rebelled, just like [Boris] did on numerous occasions
When did Boris vote to give Labour any of the Commons privileges of the government?
He undermined two party leaders/PMs for nothing more than the advancement of his own ego. He will be seen by history as the worst Conservative PM of all time
Translation: he didn't.
In the real world, MPs have never been to keep the whip after opposing the government on votes that can stop them - traditionally that's just confidence and supply, but Bercow's innovation extended the corpus.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Having skimmed the report, it seems to match the contents of the letter.
I hope Kemi Bandeoch is promoted in the reshuffle.
Why?
In common with most of the current crop of Tories, she is totally out of her depth
Yes, it's not clear to me why she attracts so much adulation from certain posters. Whenever I have seen her on the telly, she seems deeply unimpressive.
I've seen some decent enough quotes, has some decent delivery. Much substance? Hard to say - whilst she is if an age with Sunak it's worth noting traditionally people would not have senior experience at this point in their MP careers.
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Whilst the 14th amendment states that all constitutional laws applying to the Federal Government also apply to the State legislatures.
This was upheld by Supreme Court decisions in 1947, 1962 (explicitly banning school prayers), 1968 (preventing the compulsory teaching of religious beliefs) and numerous other occasions resulting in the establishment of the 'Lemon' Test.
Congress isn't making a law, the Texas legislature is.
Texas is still overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly Republican, after all it voted for Trump even in 2020 and has a Republican Governor, Republican US Senators, most of its US Representatives are Republican as are its state legislatures.
I see no problem with this at all
As I said in my OP, the 14th Amendment explicitly applies constitutional laws to the actions of State as well as Federal institutions. This has been upheld on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
The 14th Amendment only states the states cannot deprive persons of personal liberty. It does not say schools in individual states cannot be mandated to display the 10 commandments.
Given this new ultra conservative and Christian Supreme Court has struck down Roe v Wade and even allowed states to ban abortion, secular liberals are taking a big gamble saying the SC will strike down this new Texan law
Educate yourself, HYUFD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ..The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the states the same limitations the First Amendment had always imposed on the Congress.[22] This "elementary proposition of law" was confirmed and endorsed time and time again in cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940)[a] and Wooley v. Maynard (1977).[b][25] The central liberty that unifies the various clauses in the First Amendment is the individual's freedom of conscience:[26]..
Though you have a point that nothing can be entirely ruled out with the current nutters on the bench.
Also if they gut the 14th amendment by saying that the 1st doesn’t apply to States, then Democratic controlled states will be free to ignore the 2nd amendment.
Yes, he's going to be really pissed off if Starmer actually wins the general election. It's quite startling how some of the extremists on the far left are actually egging the Tories on in the hope that they'll be able to claim that they were right all along about Starmer.
Yes, he's going to be really pissed off if Starmer actually wins the general election. It's quite startling how some of the extremists on the far left are actually egging the Tories on in the hope that they'll be able to claim that they were right all along about Starmer.
I agree with that, although the far left could probably legitimately make the same claim about the right wanting Corbyn to lose so that they could say they were right all along about Corbyn.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Having skimmed the report, it seems to match the contents of the letter.
Almost as if Raab were a Cambridge-educated lawyer as well as being an Oxford-educated lawyer and expert at playing a straight bat.
I look forward to revisiting this piece of unapologetic self-exculpation in the context of having read Tolley's report, when Sunak publishes it in full, as he has promised. ...Of course, this must be done within reasonable bounds. Mr Tolley concluded that I had not once, in four and a half years, sworn or shouted at anyone, let alone thrown anything or otherwise physically intimidated anyone, nor intentionally sought to belittle anyone. I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice. That is, however, what the public expect of Ministers working on their behalf...
But we need to see the report. Why the delay in publishing it?
FWIW I believe these two things can both be true: Raab was abrasive and demanding AND bitter Remainers used that to fuck him over, as a leading Brexiteer
You love Brexit Britain so much you’re never fucking here.
I believe Switzerland is the place to go for that.
Am I understanding this correctly? Raab said all but two claims levelled against had been dismissed. But there were essentially only three complaints considered?
Yes, he's going to be really pissed off if Starmer actually wins the general election. It's quite startling how some of the extremists on the far left are actually egging the Tories on in the hope that they'll be able to claim that they were right all along about Starmer.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
At some point, the emphasis of the doctrine of government shifted from "we are the servants of the people" to "we embody the will of the people". Probably as a gradual drift over decades, certainly both big parties have been involved.
The trouble with the will of the people approach to government is that it doesn't give direction about what to do when that will is thwarted- whether by incompetent minions, a greater will, or the laws of physics.
The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Whilst the 14th amendment states that all constitutional laws applying to the Federal Government also apply to the State legislatures.
This was upheld by Supreme Court decisions in 1947, 1962 (explicitly banning school prayers), 1968 (preventing the compulsory teaching of religious beliefs) and numerous other occasions resulting in the establishment of the 'Lemon' Test.
Congress isn't making a law, the Texas legislature is.
Texas is still overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly Republican, after all it voted for Trump even in 2020 and has a Republican Governor, Republican US Senators, most of its US Representatives are Republican as are its state legislatures.
I see no problem with this at all
As I said in my OP, the 14th Amendment explicitly applies constitutional laws to the actions of State as well as Federal institutions. This has been upheld on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
The 14th Amendment only states the states cannot deprive persons of personal liberty. It does not say schools in individual states cannot be mandated to display the 10 commandments.
Given this new ultra conservative and Christian Supreme Court has struck down Roe v Wade and even allowed states to ban abortion, secular liberals are taking a big gamble saying the SC will strike down this new Texan law
Educate yourself, HYUFD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ..The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the states the same limitations the First Amendment had always imposed on the Congress.[22] This "elementary proposition of law" was confirmed and endorsed time and time again in cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940)[a] and Wooley v. Maynard (1977).[b][25] The central liberty that unifies the various clauses in the First Amendment is the individual's freedom of conscience:[26]..
Though you have a point that nothing can be entirely ruled out with the current nutters on the bench.
Also if they gut the 14th amendment by saying that the 1st doesn’t apply to States, then Democratic controlled states will be free to ignore the 2nd amendment.
That might actually be a net win…
Any such ruling would unhinge a great deal more US law that that. It would mean years of chaos, particularly for the political minorities - Republican or Democratic - in every state.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Bullying is a characteristic of a bad working culture, and related to 'good news culture', unwritten rules, fear of speaking up and related things which are very often at the heart of massive organisational failings.
It is fine - desirable, indeed - to be tough and demanding as a leader, but with fairness and good nature (and crucially being open to criticism). Raab (like a lot of MPs on all sides tbh) is too much the narcissist to be a decent leader.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Just because times have changed doesn't mean they've changed for the better.
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
Weak from SKS but is Twitter playing up this morning? It took a couple of goes to find your link.
Am I understanding this correctly? Raab said all but two claims levelled against had been dismissed. But there were essentially only three complaints considered?
Yes, further qualifications at the top of the report: ..43. Some individuals wished to contribute to the investigation only on the basis of anonymity (or non-attributability) to others involved in the process apart from me. In such cases, I had to consider whether it was possible to take their contribution into account, bearing in mind the principle of fairness to the DPM (to enable him to understand and respond to any allegation). Communication of sufficient details of an anonymised allegation would also run the risk of identification contrary to the individual’s wishes. 44. Ultimately, there was only one instance in which I decided that I could properly consider such an allegation. It was put to the DPM for a response, because there was sufficient material to enable him fairly to address it and the individual concerned accepted that it would be possible for the DPM to identify them even though their name had been withheld. 45. All of the material obtained in the course of the investigation is available to the Prime Minister, subject to the same terms as to confidentiality as it was given to me...
Note we get to see the report. We will not see any of the material considered in the writing of the report, so it's not really possible to make a fully informed judgment os its conclusions.
With regard to Raab also note that the majority of bullies, however egregious, don't consider themselves to be so.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
At somep point, the emphasis of the doctrine of government shifted from "we are the servants of the people" to "we embody the will of the people". Probably as a gradual drift over decades, certainly both big parties have been involved.
The trouble with the will of the people approach to government is that it doesn't give direction about what to do when that will is thwarted- whether by incompetent minions, a greater will, or the laws of physics.
It is also an abdication of leadership. Political leadership should, in large part, be about proposing policies that the party in question believes to be in the interests of the country even if they might appear initially unpopular. Eg Churchill's opposition to Appeasement, Thatcher's denationalisation/privatisation programme and then SELLING those policies. The will-o-the-people approach is the icy road to populism and, paradoxically, despotism.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
Weak from SKS but is Twitter playing up this morning? It took a couple of goes to find your link.
Working on my phone but not my laptop. Presumably Musk has fallen asleep on his desk and hit the escape key or something.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
These two US and French readouts of the @JoeBiden@EmmanuelMacron are masterpieces of contrast and talking past each other. The kind of pictures of contrast you usually get between say a French and Iranian readout of a leaders’ call. -1-
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Just because times have changed doesn't mean they've changed for the better.
That's true as an abstract point. But bullying and treating employees like shit being seen as a negative would be a good change.
Yes, you will get some pushing too far, some complaints about bullying amount to being disagreed with or challenged, and that is too low a bar. But treating others as you would wish to be treated is a pretty old rule as well.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
I dunno. He'd have grounds not to resign and it's a pretty weak report, but he's stuck to what he said and I reckon he sees a defeat at the next GE and can build a solid position for party leadership from the back benches.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
No it’s not. It’s articulate and cogent. He feels he has been unfairly targeted and the standard of “bullying” is being set so low it can be used to thwart ministers doing their jobs. How do you know he is wrong?
Churchill was probably a bit of a bully. Action this day! Lots of fine politicians are bossy and pushy. It comes with the territory.
We need to see the damn report
I partially agree, but times have changed. Most corporate companies have policies that prevent bullying, and it is not difficult to apply, and indeed is likely to enhance productivity.
The problem with most politicians (of all stripes) is that they seem to believe that the standards expected of those in the mortal realm do not apply to their divine activities. There needs to be more done to remind them that the laws that they expect others to live with also apply to them.
Just because times have changed doesn't mean they've changed for the better.
A very reactionary view but you are entitled to it.
Studies have demonstrated that bullying in the work place, or even the perception of bullying, is detrimental to productivity. Corporate companies have recognised this and have acted on it. It is an example of where times definitely have changed for the better. Except in the mind of Raab and his apologists perhaps.
Well I’ve just read it. All of it. What a load of shite about nothing. Raab has every reason to be aggrieved
I wouldn't worry. Two years today he'll be leader of the opposition.
He’s going to be an out of work, former MP, looking for something to do after his crushing defeat at the hands of the yellow tidal wave in the former Blue Wall.
Well I’ve just read it. All of it. What a load of shite about nothing. Raab has every reason to be aggrieved
I wouldn't worry. Two years today he'll be leader of the opposition.
He’s going to be an out of work, former MP, looking for something to do after his crushing defeat at the hands of the yellow tidal wave in the former Blue Wall.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
The great majority were not considered for the purposes of the report. That's not really the same thing.
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
Weak from SKS but is Twitter playing up this morning? It took a couple of goes to find your link.
Working on my phone but not my laptop. Presumably Musk has fallen asleep on his desk and hit the escape key or something.
There were a whole load of updates overnight, and they appear to have done insufficient QA. Whether accidentally or deliberately, trying to use the search function, or clicking on a ‘trending’ topic, now prompts you to log in if you’re not.
I’ll guess that, Musk being Musk, this was known as the ‘4/20 update’ and was going out yesterday whether it was ready or not!
We complain about the government being weak and useless - and they are - then when a minister works really hard (as the report makes clear), and pushes his civil servants to do better, he gets the sack for “bullying”
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
Indeed, and he is a good example why the Raab apologist "Infamy infamy..they have all got it in for me (because I am a Brexiteer)" doesn't really wash.
Well I’ve just read it. All of it. What a load of shite about nothing. Raab has every reason to be aggrieved
I wouldn't worry. Two years today he'll be leader of the opposition.
He’s going to be an out of work, former MP, looking for something to do after his crushing defeat at the hands of the yellow tidal wave in the former Blue Wall.
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
The pile on point should not be lost. Trivial gripes simply distract from genuine concerns and should not be submitted, even as it initially adds to political ammunition - there have been loads of complaints etc.
Your second pars is important though. From some quotes here it looks like Rishi could have had some success if he wanted to stick it out with Raab. We know he's willing to be controversial as when he appointed Braverman. So he's not unwilling to defend ministers.
Ergo, this was Rishi's choice, and the reason why he did it matters.
We complain about the government being weak and useless - and they are - then when a minister works really hard (as the report makes clear), and pushes his civil servants to do better, he gets the sack for “bullying”
We are a pathetic nation
There you go again...running down your own country lol
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
The qualifications in the report are as interesting as the findings.
...In the course of his ministerial work, the DPM often encounters what he genuinely sees as frustrations in respect of the quality of work done, its speed of production and the extent to which it implements his policy decisions. it has not been necessary to make any finding as to whether any of those frustrations was well-founded in any particular case...
...The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil servants. He refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. Views can, however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision (or ‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it...
..The DPM tends to take a clear view of an issue, whatever it may comprise. This applies across the range of matters with which he deals, from policy decisions to the presentational format of papers. In the context of the investigation, this approach manifested itself in what I considered to be a somewhat absolutist approach in his response to certain points, such as whether a particular conversation had occurred, either at all or in a certain way. His responses were frequently put in ‘black or white’ terms, with no room for nuance even where nuance might reasonably be expected. I did not find this approach persuasive. However, I have in every instance of factual dispute considered what appeared to me to be the inherent probabilities, the evidence as a whole and the overall context before reaching any conclusion...
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
Politics may be cut throat, but you can still smile as you do it.
Gove comes across to me as a bit weird but probably a nice enough chap. Impossible to be sure from just seeing people on TV, but it seems to be backed up by reports.
Theres also a middle ground between sucking up to civil servants and seeing them as an enemy.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
Indeed, and he is a good example why the Raab apologist "Infamy infamy..they have all got it in for me (because I am a Brexiteer)" doesn't really wash.
Yeah, there is zero remain/leave at play here. If there is a revenge agenda here, it's because he's a useless angry bellend. Sunak himself was (I understand) well-liked as a minister, and is/was a bone-dry brexiter; I'm sure there are other examples.
Some of the righties on here see remoaners behind everything, like Paisley's papists.
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
You don't survive that in 2023.
Raab was occasionally an abrasive boss. That’s it. The civil servants are pitiful wankers
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
Maybe they "piled in" on him because he was a bully and therefore deserved the pile on? As @Ghedebrav has commented, there has been no-such accusations made against arch-Brexiteer Gove, or any of the other numerous Brexiteers. Although I don't think you are necessarily saying it, but this paranoid suggestion by some that it is because he was a leaver is fatuous.
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
Which is part of the reason why, even though he has made some big policy mistakes, even though he must be running out of knives to stab people in the back with, he's still there. Him and Hunt are (I think) the only Cabinet ministers from 2010 still at the top table.
"the idea that his behaviour was necessary to drive performance can be refuted by the absence of a single substantive achievement in 7 years as a minister and 5 in cabinet.
He was a failure as Brexit Secretary; oversaw the Afghanistan disaster at the Foreign Office; and put forward a garbage human rights Bill that has gone nowhere as Justice Secretary while the court system has crumbled. No high performance culture discernable."
Well I’ve just read it. All of it. What a load of shite about nothing. Raab has every reason to be aggrieved
I wouldn't worry. Two years today he'll be leader of the opposition.
You think Raab can hold Esher and Walton?
Personally I think there's a good chance he will be one of the big "were you up for" moments in Election 24?
50/50 tbh. But who knows - maybe he'll resign his seat and then seek selection somewhere safer? The LDs will certainly want to tip it over, and probably would in a by-election, but I'm not sure they'll manage it in the GE.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
Maybe they "piled in" on him because he was a bully and therefore deserved the pile on? As @Ghedebrav has commented, there has been no-such accusations made against arch-Brexiteer Gove, or any of the other numerous Brexiteers. Although I don't think you are necessarily saying it, but this paranoid suggestion by some that it is because he was a leaver is fatuous.
Was at most a minor player in Brexit debates. Only thing he is remembered for to do with Brexit is Dover.
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
I'm prepared to give democratically elected leaders some leeway on being a bit pushy, even a tad rude. It's a poor and unnecessary choice but an amount of recognition of their position is ok tona degree - and civil servants accommodate that all the time.
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
"the idea that his behaviour was necessary to drive performance can be refuted by the absence of a single substantive achievement in 7 years as a minister and 5 in cabinet.
He was a failure as Brexit Secretary; oversaw the Afghanistan disaster at the Foreign Office; and put forward a garbage human rights Bill that has gone nowhere as Justice Secretary while the court system has crumbled. No high performance culture discernable."
Basically he called some work “woeful” and was sometimes openly critical of civil servants. He never swore, shouted or targeted anyone
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Margaret Thatcher was always highly civil to civil servants. Possibly bullied ministers, but never No10 staff. She was a heavyweight. Raab is a lightweight. that is the difference.
Gove has been well-liked by his civil servants wherever he's been a minister. Civility goes a long way.
Which is part of the reason why, even though he has made some big policy mistakes, even though he must be running out of knives to stab people in the back with, he's still there. Him and Hunt are (I think) the only Cabinet ministers from 2010 still at the top table.
Yes, people underestimate the difficulty to get longevity. Being useless or terrible with people wouldn't cut it.
You may need disruptors for ideas, but they are useless at getting things done, mentioning no Cummings.
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
And there were rumours one of the phones actually hit someone (not to mention he supposedly kicked over a coffee table)
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
You don't survive that in 2023.
Raab was occasionally an abrasive boss. That’s it. The civil servants are pitiful wankers
Abrasive bosses have a habit of increasing staff turnover resulting in far higher recruitment costs (and greater loss of knowledge) than would otherwise be the case
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
Gordon Brown was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as PM. Dominic Raab was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as DPM.
If bullying really worked might it be worth sacrificing the egos and mental health of a few civil servants for the greater good. Possibly, its a debate that could be had if bullying worked. But bullying doesn't work - you need to motivate staff to get results.
Well I’ve just read it. All of it. What a load of shite about nothing. Raab has every reason to be aggrieved
I wouldn't worry. Two years today he'll be leader of the opposition.
He’s going to be an out of work, former MP, looking for something to do after his crushing defeat at the hands of the yellow tidal wave in the former Blue Wall.
Former client in Romania won't pay invoices (comfortably 5 figures) until tax residency certificate is sent. After 2 months of faff from HMRC - including them sending them to the wrong address - I finally sent the certificate to Romania via Royal Mail tracked and signed last week.
3-5 business days.
Website has the letter scanned out of Aberdeen bound for Heathrow a week ago, And then? Nothing! Customer service lady apologetic, said after a recent cyber attack their scanning system is not working. So they are selling tracking, but can't actually track!
Said they don't get scan data from Romania anyway (despite selling it) so has no idea if it is in Romania or Heathrow but "should be". It isn't counted as lost for another month so they don't care...
I obtained 2 copies of my tax residency certificate. At this rate I will be on Ryanair to Bucharest with that copy...
DHL / FEDEX or equivalent should give you properly tracked delivery for high value documents.
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
You don't survive that in 2023.
Raab was occasionally an abrasive boss. That’s it. The civil servants are pitiful wankers
Your thinking on this is surprisingly unsophisticated. @kle4 is right in saying that this was Rishi's choice. He could have given a 'full confidence' type backing etc. but nowt. The idea that civil servants can take down a minister is nonsense. Otherwise it would happen a *lot* more, and tbh to more deserving cases than Big Bad Dom.
Probably didn't help Raab's case that he is (was!) a pretty useless minister.
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
Brown was kicked out of office, so sacked by the electorate. Besides, because of the fact that previous Labour figures have been/may have been bullies does not excuse Raab, or any other lightweight little twat for trying to belittle others because he woke up this morning and once again was reminded how small his manhood is.
No employee, government or otherwise should have to put up with jerks like Raab. Sunak was quite right to manage him out.
I’m self employed and have worked in an office once for about 3 hours. But if the descriptions on here of UK office life are correct - a boss must not even raise a hand to interrupt someone speaking - then it is not surprising the country is going down the shitter. What a tsunami of snowflakiness
Being a demanding boss is not the same as being a bully. But the behaviour of a demanding boss is very different. A good, demanding boss who wants high standards needs to motivate their workforce. They take the time to talk through the feedback they are giving, explain how they need things to be different next time, and address any concerns and (crucially) take on board feedback themselves. They act as mentor, not dragon.
The impression I get in this instance is Raab is hiding behind the “demanding boss” line but actually his leadership style was poor and demotivating.
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
Gordon Brown was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as PM. Dominic Raab was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as DPM.
If bullying really worked might it be worth sacrificing the egos and mental health of a few civil servants for the greater good. Possibly, its a debate that could be had if bullying worked. But bullying doesn't work - you need to motivate staff to get results.
Yep, I was saying earlier that I have never encountered a competent bully in the workplace – all have either been sacked or lost all their key personnel, or both. Bullying is a classic sign of inability.
I’m self employed and have worked in an office once for about 3 hours. But if the descriptions on here of UK office life are correct - a boss must not even raise a hand to interrupt someone speaking - then it is not surprising the country is going down the shitter. What a tsunami of snowflakiness
You just said it all @Leon. You have no experience of working in an office. As you are not easily offended I must put up my hand and tell you to shut up because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Are you still feeling motivated to work hard for me?
Sticking hands in people's face to stop them talking, intimating and aggressive, banging the table.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
OMG. Minister raises hand to stop someone talking so the minister can make a point. Jesus. That’s practically the Spanish inquisition
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
Nobody would survive that sort of behaviour at any workplace I have worked out, so why should Whitehall be any different? It’s a sign of deep incompetence as much as anything else, shutting people down, and preventing them from challenging you. Pretty much the definition of toxic leadership.
Gordon Brown used to throw fucking phones around. Did he have to resign for bullying?
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
Gordon Brown was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as PM. Dominic Raab was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as DPM.
If bullying really worked might it be worth sacrificing the egos and mental health of a few civil servants for the greater good. Possibly, its a debate that could be had if bullying worked. But bullying doesn't work - you need to motivate staff to get results.
Also, Brown getting away with being a shit is something to regret, not emulate (though Raab does not appear as bad).
We complain about the government being weak and useless - and they are - then when a minister works really hard (as the report makes clear), and pushes his civil servants to do better, he gets the sack for “bullying”
We are a pathetic nation
I read it a little differently. While it's clear form the report that any 'bullying' was generalised rather than persistently targeted behaviour, he sounds an absolute nightmare to work for.
The context for the 'hard working', driven; minister is that he achieved the square root of fuck all. And I suspect, though it's impossible to know for sure from the report, that much of the frustration which he visited on his civil servants (most of whose complaints were not considered by the report) was a result of his inability to be an effective minister despite all the furious activity.
We are a pathetic nation if we can't do better the Raab at the senior levels of government.
The report seems largely exculpatory, having skim read it, and fully read the conclusions.
That's true - but the one part that isn't exculpatory is enough to have made his position untenable.
No it’s not. He was a bit pushy and would call work “utterly useless”. Apparently that is “unconstructive criticism” and constitutes bullying
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
176 (2) (b): In reaching and implementing this management choice he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that the DPM was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware.
You don't survive that in 2023.
Raab was occasionally an abrasive boss. That’s it. The civil servants are pitiful wankers
No, that's clearly not 'it'. They've put up with plenty of abrasive ministers, and will continue to do so. There's clearly more to it than that.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
Maybe they "piled in" on him because he was a bully and therefore deserved the pile on? As @Ghedebrav has commented, there has been no-such accusations made against arch-Brexiteer Gove, or any of the other numerous Brexiteers. Although I don't think you are necessarily saying it, but this paranoid suggestion by some that it is because he was a leaver is fatuous.
If they were not substantive complaints he didn't deserve a pile on including them - a case is not made stronger by including them.
I'd like to know how this alleged bullying compares to the type I had to put up with at school.
Bullying in the work place and school bullying have similar reasons and consequences. The bullies are nearly always jerks who have issues of self loathing that they seek to take out on others. The victims are often permanently scarred.
Society should do it's best to eliminate both school and workplace bullying as similar evils.
@IsabelHardman Sunak didn’t tell Raab to resign, I understand from No10 sources. Some Tory MPs I’ve spoken to this morning say this makes it an honourable resignation - others wondering if it makes the PM just a commentator at the side of his own govt.
Yea, right. Sunak handed his friend the whisky bottle and the revolver. Only Sunak detractors will see it otherwise.
The Civil Service piled in on Raab. The great majority of charges against him were not upheld.
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
Maybe they "piled in" on him because he was a bully and therefore deserved the pile on? As @Ghedebrav has commented, there has been no-such accusations made against arch-Brexiteer Gove, or any of the other numerous Brexiteers. Although I don't think you are necessarily saying it, but this paranoid suggestion by some that it is because he was a leaver is fatuous.
If they were not substantive complaints he didn't deserve a pile on including them - a case is not made stronger by including them.
Raab’s departure is great for Sunak. It’s another barnacle off the boat.
I haven’t read the report, but from extracts it seems that even a whitewash job couldn’t quite cover over the nasty stains on Raab’s “management” style.
As other have noted, he achieved nothing after seven years as a Minister. Worse than nothing if you count the Afghanistan debacle. Good riddance.
And I speak as one of the few owners of his book “Assault on Liberty”.
"the idea that his behaviour was necessary to drive performance can be refuted by the absence of a single substantive achievement in 7 years as a minister and 5 in cabinet.
He was a failure as Brexit Secretary; oversaw the Afghanistan disaster at the Foreign Office; and put forward a garbage human rights Bill that has gone nowhere as Justice Secretary while the court system has crumbled. No high performance culture discernable."
That is indeed a more substantial critique of Raab. I too can’t think of anything he has actually done
That's part of the government's problem next year.
Apart from Getting Brexit Done (and that's probably a turnoff for more voters than it's a turnon), what can the 2019-24 Conservative government point to and say "we did that"?
Yes, Covid got in the way, but that ended some time ago as a crisis. And besides, the wartime coalition got a fair bit done on the home front at the same time as saving the world from fascism.
When my dad was dementing and dying, one of the things we were encouraged to do was put together a scrapbook of what he'd done. Not so much what he'd been, but what he'd done. And it was a comfort to him. What is there to go in the scrapbook of this government?
Comments
In the real world, MPs have never been to keep the whip after opposing the government on votes that can stop them - traditionally that's just confidence and supply, but Bercow's innovation extended the corpus.
Must be spring.
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
That might actually be a net win…
Not even clear ToryJohnOwls is "on the left" – he was going to vote for Boris.
The trouble with the will of the people approach to government is that it doesn't give direction about what to do when that will is thwarted- whether by incompetent minions, a greater will, or the laws of physics.
It would mean years of chaos, particularly for the political minorities - Republican or Democratic - in every state.
It is fine - desirable, indeed - to be tough and demanding as a leader, but with fairness and good nature (and crucially being open to criticism). Raab (like a lot of MPs on all sides tbh) is too much the narcissist to be a decent leader.
Private sector finds that bullying is ineffective and leads to poor performance.
Tories - No, not those lessons!
..43. Some individuals wished to contribute to the investigation only on the basis of anonymity (or non-attributability) to others involved in the process apart from me. In such cases, I had to consider whether it was possible to take their contribution into account, bearing in mind the principle of fairness to the DPM (to enable him to understand and respond to any allegation). Communication of sufficient details of an anonymised allegation would also run the risk of identification contrary to the individual’s wishes.
44. Ultimately, there was only one instance in which I decided that I could properly consider such an allegation. It was put to the DPM for a response, because there was sufficient material to enable him fairly to address it and the individual concerned accepted that it would be possible for the DPM to identify them even though their name had been withheld.
45. All of the material obtained in the course of the investigation is available to the Prime Minister, subject to the same terms as to confidentiality as it was given to me...
Note we get to see the report.
We will not see any of the material considered in the writing of the report, so it's not really possible to make a fully informed judgment os its conclusions.
With regard to Raab also note that the majority of bullies, however egregious, don't consider themselves to be so.
The will-o-the-people approach is the icy road to populism and, paradoxically, despotism.
It’s ludicrous. Raab might be an arse but he has good reason to be hacked off. This sounds like concocted civil service revenge on a minister they simply didn’t like
Bear that in mind in future.
However, on those two that were, it is clear that Rishi feels they were resigning matters. If Raab couldn't see that too, then he was the problem. As a result, he did not have Rishi's confidence. He had to go.
These two US and French readouts of the @JoeBiden @EmmanuelMacron are masterpieces of contrast and talking past each other. The kind of pictures of contrast you usually get between say a French and Iranian readout of a leaders’ call. -1-
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1649140180350296065?s=20
Yes, you will get some pushing too far, some complaints about bullying amount to being disagreed with or challenged, and that is too low a bar. But treating others as you would wish to be treated is a pretty old rule as well.
What a pile of pettifogging piffle
Studies have demonstrated that bullying in the work place, or even the perception of bullying, is detrimental to productivity. Corporate companies have recognised this and have acted on it. It is an example of where times definitely have changed for the better. Except in the mind of Raab and his apologists perhaps.
Sounds like an incompetent bully to me who should be nowhere near government.
That's not really the same thing.
Personally I think there's a good chance he will be one of the big "were you up for" moments in Election 24?
I’ll guess that, Musk being Musk, this was known as the ‘4/20 update’ and was going out yesterday whether it was ready or not!
We are a pathetic nation
You don't survive that in 2023.
No overall maj 2.66
Con maj 7.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195
Smarkets:
Lab maj 50.0%
No overall maj 39.06%
Con maj 13.51%
https://smarkets.com/event/41817534/politics/uk/next-uk-general-election/next-general-election-overall-majority
Your second pars is important though. From some quotes here it looks like Rishi could have had some success if he wanted to stick it out with Raab. We know he's willing to be controversial as when he appointed Braverman. So he's not unwilling to defend ministers.
Ergo, this was Rishi's choice, and the reason why he did it matters.
He’s a fucking minister. Democratically appointed. He’s meant to be the boss. Get things done. He’s allowed to interrupt when some idiot is waffling on
I was expecting to read stuff about him hurling chairs or sticking peoples heads down toilets. Not this bollocks
...In the course of his ministerial work, the DPM often encounters what he genuinely sees as frustrations in respect of the quality of work done, its speed of production and the extent to which it implements his policy decisions. it has not been necessary to make any finding as to whether any of those frustrations was well-founded in any particular case...
...The DPM often operates on the basis that once he has made a policy decision, it should not be revisited subsequently by civil servants. He refers to this, when it occurs, as ‘relitigating his steers’. Views can, however, reasonably differ as to whether an earlier policy decision (or ‘steer’) was truly final, particularly in light of new or additional circumstances which may arise. Civil servants have a duty to give informed and impartial advice and Ministers have an obligation (under paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code) to consider it...
..The DPM tends to take a clear view of an issue, whatever it may comprise. This applies across the range of matters with which he deals, from policy decisions to the presentational format of papers. In the context of the investigation, this approach manifested itself in what I considered to be a somewhat absolutist approach in his response to certain points, such as whether a particular conversation had occurred, either at all or in a certain way. His responses were frequently put in ‘black or white’ terms, with no room for nuance even where nuance might reasonably be expected. I did not find this approach persuasive. However, I have in every instance of factual dispute considered what appeared to me to be the inherent probabilities, the evidence as a whole and the overall context before reaching any conclusion...
Gove comes across to me as a bit weird but probably a nice enough chap. Impossible to be sure from just seeing people on TV, but it seems to be backed up by reports.
Theres also a middle ground between sucking up to civil servants and seeing them as an enemy.
Some of the righties on here see remoaners behind everything, like Paisley's papists.
"the idea that his behaviour was necessary to drive performance can be refuted by the absence of a single substantive achievement in 7 years as a minister and 5 in cabinet.
He was a failure as Brexit Secretary; oversaw the Afghanistan disaster at the Foreign Office; and put forward a garbage human rights Bill that has gone nowhere as Justice Secretary while the court system has crumbled. No high performance culture discernable."
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1649358492145156097
But it's not a blank cheque.
Dominic Raab called some work “woeful”. He’s sacked for bullying
You may need disruptors for ideas, but they are useless at getting things done, mentioning no Cummings.
Interesting.
On Raab - he was toast when the first allegation was found to be correct. Having a zillion others dismissed doesn’t effect that.
Dominic Raab was an ineffective manager of people and it cost him his job as DPM.
If bullying really worked might it be worth sacrificing the egos and mental health of a few civil servants for the greater good. Possibly, its a debate that could be had if bullying worked. But bullying doesn't work - you need to motivate staff to get results.
Is the price getting rid of people like Raab? Bargain!
Probably didn't help Raab's case that he is (was!) a pretty useless minister.
No employee, government or otherwise should have to put up with jerks like Raab. Sunak was quite right to manage him out.
The impression I get in this instance is Raab is hiding behind the “demanding boss” line but actually his leadership style was poor and demotivating.
I'm genuinely sorry you were bullied at school.
But this is not North Walsall Comprehensive circa 1985.
It's a Whitehall department.
While it's clear form the report that any 'bullying' was generalised rather than persistently targeted behaviour, he sounds an absolute nightmare to work for.
The context for the 'hard working', driven; minister is that he achieved the square root of fuck all.
And I suspect, though it's impossible to know for sure from the report, that much of the frustration which he visited on his civil servants (most of whose complaints were not considered by the report) was a result of his inability to be an effective minister despite all the furious activity.
We are a pathetic nation if we can't do better the Raab at the senior levels of government.
There's clearly more to it than that.
Lab maj 35%
NOM 47%
Tory maj 18%
Society should do it's best to eliminate both school and workplace bullying as similar evils.
Read the report.
It’s another barnacle off the boat.
I haven’t read the report, but from extracts it seems that even a whitewash job couldn’t quite cover over the nasty stains on Raab’s “management” style.
As other have noted, he achieved nothing after seven years as a Minister. Worse than nothing if you count the Afghanistan debacle. Good riddance.
And I speak as one of the few owners of his book “Assault on Liberty”.
Apart from Getting Brexit Done (and that's probably a turnoff for more voters than it's a turnon), what can the 2019-24 Conservative government point to and say "we did that"?
Yes, Covid got in the way, but that ended some time ago as a crisis. And besides, the wartime coalition got a fair bit done on the home front at the same time as saving the world from fascism.
When my dad was dementing and dying, one of the things we were encouraged to do was put together a scrapbook of what he'd done. Not so much what he'd been, but what he'd done. And it was a comfort to him. What is there to go in the scrapbook of this government?