Can a conservative (or for that matter free-market, small government liberal) government get a recalcitrant bureaucracy to implement its agenda even if the media centres entirely on elite objections?
‘Insisting on evidence is only the first part of how to deal with push-back from public servants.’
But the left in general, and public servants are understandably left as a class, seem uninterested, and often hostile to evidence.
There was no evidence that lockdowns worked, but they still attempted a third one. There was no evidence that children were susceptible to Covid but still schools were closed. There is no evidence that a man can magic himself into becoming a woman but still there are attempts to imprison any who say otherwise. There is no evidence that vaping is as dangerous as smoking, but who cares? ‘Popcorn lung’ or something. So ban it anyway. There is no evidence that the (fading) wealth of this nation was built on slavery. But still they demand reparations.
The left is open in its contempt for objectivity-evidence. So how can we use it as a bulwark to its excesses? It simply doesn’t work, because they dismiss its value.
I don’t mean to be picky btw. I very much enjoyed this article. And agree that there’s no conspiracy. Mainly because they have no need of one. .
Were public servants “left as a class” 50 years ago? I’m not sure they were, in which case it’s not quite right to say this is “understandably” the case. It’s more I think that a generation of generally left inclining graduates has reached the top of the tree and has encouraged recruitment in its own image.
Fair point Paul. But I say understandably’ because they are paid for by the state, and in most cases only benefit by the growing of the state. They are dependent on left wing policies sending cash and influence their way. That is why I understand it. It is in their interests.
I’m not sure your point, which I agree with, actually contradicts my own.
You are absolutely right about the civil service "recruitment in its own image". Perhaps LSO in his "understandably" was mindful of Conquest's (or some say O'Sullivan's) Law:
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
As I wrote in this piece: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing "Unsurprisingly, neither governmental bureaucracies and quangos nor other civil institutions keep statistics on the political leanings of their employees. But there are clues. Unherd columnist Peter Franklin reflecting on his own experience of working in two UK government departments comments: “How many of the civil servants that most closely serve this Conservative government are actually Leftwing? Well....I would say approximately all of them”.
The tragedy is that - for those people not immersed in Substack-type political discourse - this hugely important part of the story of the meltdown of our supposed elective democracy is lost on them. People who are content with just a daily dose of MSM (which is most people and who can blame them) will still imagine that the management/mismanagement of their country is all about BBC-type blah blah about the Sunak/Starmer SWI pychodrama. They will have little sense of how beside-the-point all this has become thanks to 50+ years of graduate professional class leftist sheep-dipping.
You may well be right that the average civil servant is not overly political and happy to get on with delivering policy in an apolitical manner.
But as in every organisation of any size it’s not the average employee who matters, it’s the CEO who sets the agenda and puts in place the mechanisms, including stick and carrot, to deliver it. Within our governance arrangements the CEO is not the minister who is more akin to the board chairman. The most important power of the chairman is to select and appoint the CEO who will deliver the corporate objective.
One of the reasons conservatives will always find it difficult to make headway is their reluctance to select their CEOs. Ministers should not simply accept the Permanent Secretaries and Quango heads they inherit; they need to ensure they are aligned, or at least 100% committed to delivering, the overall policy objectives of their ministerial masters. At the start of a new government I would expect to see major turnover in these positions or the repatriation to government of many matters that have been outsourced to Quangos, ostensibly to depoliticise their activity but in practice it seems to perpetuate the vision of Tony Blair.
To the extent that conservatives are reluctant to take such decisive actions in their first week of office they will be forever doomed to complain that the Blob is an embedded obstacle.
I agree, but ultimately being a politician is a job. Some people are good at it; others are not. Whilst ordinarily the cream rises to the top, there has been no evidence of that happening for at least 10 years.
Just like "real Communism hasn't been tried" is no excuse for a failed ideology, "I was defeated by the Deep State" is no excuse for a failed Prime Minister. It's literally part of the job description to anticipate problems which may occur with implementing your agenda, and to deal with them.
Full disclosure:- I never liked Truss from day one. Whilst foreign secretary she attended a meeting with Russia's Sergei Lavrov and let him trick her into saying that the West would defend Voronezh and Belgorod from Russian aggression (both cities in Russia), which just shows cringe levels of incompetence. She may not have known they were Russian cities (why would she?), but then she shouldn't shoot her mouth off. She then did the ultra-cringe Margaret Thatcher photoshoot. Her appalling performance during the leaders' debates sealed my opinion.
The saving grace for Conservatives is that I don't think the Labour Party are much better. Sure, Starmer's worldview probably aligns with the civil service to a greater extent than Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss. He'll have no problems implementing agreements with the EU or imposing taxes on school fees or non-doms, or setting up new Quangos with misleading names (such as "Great British Energy", which is trailed as a publicly-owned energy company, but is in fact a rebrand of a government department). But beyond that, I doubt he has the capability to mobilise and inspire the troops.
I don't think we're sending our best. See also: the USA, Germany, and closer to home Scotland and Wales. It's easy to look down on media-savvy charismatic leaders like Blair, but as anyone who's ever actually lived in the real world (unlike many on the PPE / SpAD / MP / PPS / Minister conveyor belt) will know, charismatic and popular people end up being popular managers, business leaders and generally successful for a reason.
Nice commentary based - obvious now when you think back. Not sure what will happen in ten or twenty years' time when we next have a conservative government in charge. Who knows?
‘Insisting on evidence is only the first part of how to deal with push-back from public servants.’
But the left in general, and public servants are understandably left as a class, seem uninterested, and often hostile to evidence.
There was no evidence that lockdowns worked, but they still attempted a third one. There was no evidence that children were susceptible to Covid but still schools were closed. There is no evidence that a man can magic himself into becoming a woman but still there are attempts to imprison any who say otherwise. There is no evidence that vaping is as dangerous as smoking, but who cares? ‘Popcorn lung’ or something. So ban it anyway. There is no evidence that the (fading) wealth of this nation was built on slavery. But still they demand reparations.
The left is open in its contempt for objectivity-evidence. So how can we use it as a bulwark to its excesses? It simply doesn’t work, because they dismiss its value.
I don’t mean to be picky btw. I very much enjoyed this article. And agree that there’s no conspiracy. Mainly because they have no need of one. .
Were public servants “left as a class” 50 years ago? I’m not sure they were, in which case it’s not quite right to say this is “understandably” the case. It’s more I think that a generation of generally left inclining graduates has reached the top of the tree and has encouraged recruitment in its own image.
Fair point Paul. But I say understandably’ because they are paid for by the state, and in most cases only benefit by the growing of the state. They are dependent on left wing policies sending cash and influence their way. That is why I understand it. It is in their interests.
I’m not sure your point, which I agree with, actually contradicts my own.
Best
You are absolutely right about the civil service "recruitment in its own image". Perhaps LSO in his "understandably" was mindful of Conquest's (or some say O'Sullivan's) Law:
"Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
As I wrote in this piece: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing "Unsurprisingly, neither governmental bureaucracies and quangos nor other civil institutions keep statistics on the political leanings of their employees. But there are clues. Unherd columnist Peter Franklin reflecting on his own experience of working in two UK government departments comments: “How many of the civil servants that most closely serve this Conservative government are actually Leftwing? Well....I would say approximately all of them”.
The tragedy is that - for those people not immersed in Substack-type political discourse - this hugely important part of the story of the meltdown of our supposed elective democracy is lost on them. People who are content with just a daily dose of MSM (which is most people and who can blame them) will still imagine that the management/mismanagement of their country is all about BBC-type blah blah about the Sunak/Starmer SWI pychodrama. They will have little sense of how beside-the-point all this has become thanks to 50+ years of graduate professional class leftist sheep-dipping.
"There was no evidence that children were susceptible to Covid but still schools were closed."
On the other hand, there was evidence that the older you were, the more at risk you were.
So, they were shut for the benefit of older, senior teachers.
Enter the NEU...
You may well be right that the average civil servant is not overly political and happy to get on with delivering policy in an apolitical manner.
But as in every organisation of any size it’s not the average employee who matters, it’s the CEO who sets the agenda and puts in place the mechanisms, including stick and carrot, to deliver it. Within our governance arrangements the CEO is not the minister who is more akin to the board chairman. The most important power of the chairman is to select and appoint the CEO who will deliver the corporate objective.
One of the reasons conservatives will always find it difficult to make headway is their reluctance to select their CEOs. Ministers should not simply accept the Permanent Secretaries and Quango heads they inherit; they need to ensure they are aligned, or at least 100% committed to delivering, the overall policy objectives of their ministerial masters. At the start of a new government I would expect to see major turnover in these positions or the repatriation to government of many matters that have been outsourced to Quangos, ostensibly to depoliticise their activity but in practice it seems to perpetuate the vision of Tony Blair.
To the extent that conservatives are reluctant to take such decisive actions in their first week of office they will be forever doomed to complain that the Blob is an embedded obstacle.
I agree, but ultimately being a politician is a job. Some people are good at it; others are not. Whilst ordinarily the cream rises to the top, there has been no evidence of that happening for at least 10 years.
Just like "real Communism hasn't been tried" is no excuse for a failed ideology, "I was defeated by the Deep State" is no excuse for a failed Prime Minister. It's literally part of the job description to anticipate problems which may occur with implementing your agenda, and to deal with them.
Full disclosure:- I never liked Truss from day one. Whilst foreign secretary she attended a meeting with Russia's Sergei Lavrov and let him trick her into saying that the West would defend Voronezh and Belgorod from Russian aggression (both cities in Russia), which just shows cringe levels of incompetence. She may not have known they were Russian cities (why would she?), but then she shouldn't shoot her mouth off. She then did the ultra-cringe Margaret Thatcher photoshoot. Her appalling performance during the leaders' debates sealed my opinion.
The saving grace for Conservatives is that I don't think the Labour Party are much better. Sure, Starmer's worldview probably aligns with the civil service to a greater extent than Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss. He'll have no problems implementing agreements with the EU or imposing taxes on school fees or non-doms, or setting up new Quangos with misleading names (such as "Great British Energy", which is trailed as a publicly-owned energy company, but is in fact a rebrand of a government department). But beyond that, I doubt he has the capability to mobilise and inspire the troops.
I don't think we're sending our best. See also: the USA, Germany, and closer to home Scotland and Wales. It's easy to look down on media-savvy charismatic leaders like Blair, but as anyone who's ever actually lived in the real world (unlike many on the PPE / SpAD / MP / PPS / Minister conveyor belt) will know, charismatic and popular people end up being popular managers, business leaders and generally successful for a reason.
Nice commentary based - obvious now when you think back. Not sure what will happen in ten or twenty years' time when we next have a conservative government in charge. Who knows?