Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Raab bullied himself out of a job.

[Sheilbh]

It's one of those standard things with ministers by now - Raab should have resigned over Kabul and shouldn't be near any government department because of the failure he presided over then (same, frankly, goes for senior FCDO civil servants).

But I've found this whole thing a bit weird. The number of people making complaints and the reporting that the mood visibly lifted when he was replaced by Buckland makes me think there's a big issue with him, but every time there are specific allegations it sounds to me more like bad management rather than bullying or a resigning matter.

And now the report's been released - looking at the findings of the KC I'm still not sure this is or should be a resigning issue. Labour better be careful about the character of people in their Shadow Cabinet if this is enough to force a resignation. Frankly it feels a bit more like someone needed to have a word and he should maybe go on a management training course (something I think ministers could probably do with generally given their weird career shape):

In summary, I have found as follows:
(1) In relation to the DExEU Complaint:
(a) The DPM's conduct cannot be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating, in the sense of excessively demanding. I could not make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating in this sense. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.
(b) The DPM did not intend any adverse effect on others.
(c) No-one drew to the DPM's attention that his conduct was in any way problematic.
(d) He did not know and could not reasonably have been aware of what is said to have been the impact of his conduct on certain individuals.

(2) In relation to the FCDO Complaint:
(a) The DPM made a legitimate management choice, on the basis of his genuine, adverse view about the work of others (albeit without any grounds for disciplinary action).
(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.
(c) On a separate occasion, the DPM referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual who took it seriously. The DPM's conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He did not target any individual, nor intend to threaten anyone with disciplinary action. However, he ought to have realised that his reference to the Civil Service Code could well have been understood as a threat.

(3) In relation to the MoJ Complaints:
(a) The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM's conduct.
(b) On a number of occasions at meetings with policy officials, the DPM acted in a manner which was intimidating, in the sense of going further than was necessary or appropriate in delivering critical feedback, and also insulting, in the sense of making unconstructive critical comments about the quality of work done (whether or not as a matter of substance any criticism was justified). By way of example, he complained about the absence of what he referred to as 'basic information' or 'the basics', about 'obstructiveness' on the part of officials whom he perceived to be resistant to his policies, and described some work as 'utterly useless' and 'woeful'.
(c) The DPM did not intend by the conduct described to upset or humiliate. Nor did he target anyone for a specific type of treatment.
(d) His interruptive style is not itself behaviour that could be regarded as intimidating or insulting. However, individuals who had previously experienced the DPM express an unconstructive criticism of their work (and understood it as a criticism of them personally) might reasonably have interpreted a series of interruptions as a form of implicit criticism. The combination of unconstructive critical feedback and regular interruption is likely to be experienced as intimidating, in the sense of being unreasonably difficult to deal with, and plainly was so experienced by some individuals.
(e) The DPM was not aware, nor could he reasonably have been aware, of the impact on individuals in terms of what are said to have been the effects of his behaviour on their health.
(f) Adopting the language of Dame Sue Owen's report (while acknowledging that it is not part of the definition accepted in the FDA Case and that both types of conduct may amount to bullying), the DPM's conduct during the MoJ Period was sometimes 'abrasive', in the sense of a personal style which is or feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, 'abusive', in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically targeted.
(g) The DPM has been able to regulate this level of 'abrasiveness' since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.
(h) Since the investigation was announced, there has not been any valid ground for criticism of the DPM's conduct.

The specific finding on one of the MoJ complaints for example is this:

The DPM sometimes takes a strong view that officials should have been prepared in advance to answer his questions at a meeting and, in the event that they cannot do so, offers largely unconstructive criticism about the matter. A particular phrase used by the DPM was to complain about the absence of what he referred to as 'basic information' or 'the basics'. The public airing (in the context of a meeting) of a comment of this kind, where others present are not or may not be well-placed to judge whether the criticism is well-founded, is likely to be experienced as an unfairly personal criticism by the individual to whom the comment is directed and was so experienced by some individuals.

Again - that's bad management and especially with more junior civil servants he should have just made a complaint after the meeting to their boss so they can pass on constructively. But it doesn't strike me as wildly unacceptable that a cabinet minister has a strong view that people should be prepared for meetings including prepping for likely questions

Similarly:

A further similar example is that the DPM made a point of requiring a meeting with a policy official for the sole purpose of criticising them for their team's failure to deliver a submission on time and without having requested in advance any extension. There was no underlying urgency. For the individual in question, the experience was humiliating and upsetting.

I'd be interested to know what this KC's working life is like because I think it's something I certainly know from work that generally while many deadlines can be flexible and are not urgent (obcioiusly some are critical) people want to know them and if you can't stick to it give them an update. Again I'm not sure that seems like unreasonable or unacceptable enough to be a resigning matter. It's something that I've had drilled in in my working life around the importance of just keeping people in the loop, managing expectations etc. Unless there's more going on that he's not put in the report

The next finding is this:

In relation to the subject of undue interrupting, which featured in all of the MoJ Additional Complaints, most of the experiences described are likely to be attributable to the DPM's approach to preparation and his desire to use the time in a meeting in as focused and effective a manner as possible. He is typically not prepared to sit passively while attendees make a point that he has already understood or repeat the content of a paper that he has absorbed. He generally demands that his questions be answered in a manner which he regards as direct and straightforward. I do not regard the criticism of this part of the DPM's method of working as itself indicative of behaviour that was 'intimidating' or 'insulting'. However, individuals who had previously experienced the DPM express an unconstructive criticism of their work (and probably understood it as a criticism of them personally) might reasonably have interpreted a series of interruptions as a form of implicit criticism. The combination of explicit unconstructive criticism and frequent interrupting may have a cumulative effect as a form of intimidating or insulting behaviour.

I'm just not sure...

Edit: I also feel like a lot of journalists live-tweeting and reporting this will at the back of their minds be thinking, "wait, this is bullying?" given news room working practices

[Tamas]

'd be interested to know what this KC's working life is like because I think it's something I certainly know from work that generally while many deadlines can be flexible and are not urgent (obcioiusly some are critical) people want to know them and if you can't stick to it give them an update. Again I'm not sure that seems like unreasonable or unacceptable enough to be a resigning matter.

Maybe that meeting wasn't a professional reprimand but a personal and unjustified attack? They don't say, but since they made a big deal about it, we can safely assume it was the latter.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe that meeting wasn't a professional reprimand but a personal and unjustified attack? They don't say, but since they made a big deal about it, we can safely assume it was the latter.

It's a report by a KC who did an investigation and is making findings of fact. IF that's what happened then it should be one of their findings (subject to confidentiality etc).

The finding on his conduct in general is this - it was 'abrasive' not 'abusive':

Overall, I conclude that the DPM's conduct during the MoJ Period was on some occasions 'abrasive', in the sense of a personal style which is and feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, 'abusive', in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically targeted. He has been able to regulate this level of 'abrasiveness' since the announcement of the investigation. The DPM should have altered his approach earlier, and in particular after certain concerns had been flagged by Sir Philip Barton and Antonia Romeo.

Also no evidence of any shouting or swearing. And "no legitimate criticism" of his physical gestures either, although they might be disconcerting to people not used to working with him.

Again stuff that's probably bad management and he could do with going on a training course. But I'm not sure it's bullying or a resignation matter.

Edit: As I say I think Raab should've gone over Kabul (at least) - and for all his behaviour hasn't really achieved much as a minister. But there's a couple of Labour shadow cabinet ministers who, if this is sufficient to resign, would be better off standing down now.

Edit: Incidentally the one bit where I do have more sympathy is that his Permanent Secretary, Antonia Romeo (so his Sir Humphrey) has in her notes that she told him once that there had been complaints and if he had any performance concerns about officials he should not address them in a meeting, but to her privately. Similarly she also said that if he was frustrated with the department not delivering what he'd requested and she wasn't present, then he should not say anything to officials but speak to her about it afterwards. So he did know people had issues but again - I get reporting lines and the independence of the civil service etc etc but that seems like a fairly constrained system for political decision makers to operate in.

[mongers]

If you put a very positive spin on his behaviour and don't call it bullying, it's still a mile away from teamwork; he deserved to be sacked for being a deeply unpleasant little shit.

[Tamas]

I have seen results "abrasive not abusive" bosses have on teams. More than enough reason to be rid of him.

[garbon]

Not everyone has abuse as a kink.

[Sheilbh]

I don't entirely disagree - he wasn't an effective minister which should be a firing matter (but obviously never is on its own) and he was a bad manager. My point is that what's set out here doesn't seem like it's sufficient to cause the resignation of a cabinet minister for bullying - as I say, send him on a management course. I also think it's going to be a rod for the back of any government.

Raab's an ineffective shit and a bad manager. Some of the most consequential politicians and cabinet secretaries in recent years wouldn't last a day following this (although often their behaviour was far worse) - Gordon Brown springs immediately to mind. Get a sense Wes Streeting will have to watch out too.

Don't know about this KC but I just realised that his chambers were one I had to work with when I was a paralegal. Their working practices would not survive an examination like this - though the (then) QCs were always incredibly charming and polite.

Edit: And also as I say the volume of reports about Raab - and reports that the mood of the department was visibly different when Buckland came in - makes me think there was something seriously wrong. But none of the actual examples seem that bad - obviously in this case it's relevant that Sunak chose to use a broad definition of bullying under which intent doesn't matter.

[Duque de Bragança]

Plenty of small and micro busineses in the building sector in general though over here as well.

Of the construction sector in the UK it's about 40-50%, in France or Germany about 10-20%.

Curious.
But then the people I know in the construction sector are retired or on the way to retirement (parents' generation mostly).

[OttoVonBismarck]

I see reporting that a majority of Brits think the public shouldn't fund the coronation, and some are pretty salty about it.

That seems a tad silly to me. I think most countries have some level of civic event surrounding a new Head of State taking office. The American President's inauguration regularly costs over $100m; albeit the Inaugural Committees raise a lot of money from private donors to fund that--there are security costs born by Federal agencies and the City of DC government that are often to the tune of $35-40m USD.

Obviously as a subprime country the UK doesn't have the kind of money we do in America, but paying for an inauguration every monarch's lifetime versus every four years for our President seems like you're getting the more thrifty side of it.

[The Brain]

Skipping it sounds reasonable if money is an issue. Sweden hasn't had a coronation since 1873.

[Tamas]

Skipping it sounds reasonable if money is an issue. Sweden hasn't had a coronation since 1873.

The King is a billionaire. There is money.

[Hamilcar]

Obviously as a subprime country the UK doesn't have the kind of money we do in America

[Hamilcar]

I'm trying to think what the Swiss president gets when they take office. An apero riche probably.

[The Brain]

Skipping it sounds reasonable if money is an issue. Sweden hasn't had a coronation since 1873.

The King is a billionaire. There is money.

The public is paying I hear.