I will try to bring out Olly's newness in post rather more in the permanent version of the article - plus every official's keenness to protect and defend ministers.
Antonia Romeo's newness in post might also be a factor, but it wasn't a good start to her tenure!
As someone who was never in the Civil Service, I'm fascinated by (and grateful for) your insight that it is not astonishing that the national security mitigations for Mandelson were designed by two people who were relying on briefings without access to the underlying report.
I wonder whether you might also have views on Sir Olly's explanation to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he did not brief the Cabinet Secretary in any way at all, except to say that clearance was given, because to have done so would, in effect, be passing on responsibility for the decision. I didn't feel confident about commenting on this in my own post, but as a matter of simple logic, I find myself thinking that Sir Olly's point (that sharing information upwards has the effect of sharing some of the responsibility) depends on sharing SUFFICIENT information for the senior colleague to be in a position to make the decision.
Would it really have been passing the buck for Sir Olly to have said: "In light of the information I received - and which I cannot pass on to you - I concluded that mitigations were necessary. They have been put in place and clearance has been given."? Any thoughts on that?
I can't help but feel there's an underlying issue that doesn't get discussed enough in this - why was the Prime Minister appointing the US Ambassador in the first place? I feel the direction of travel over the past 15 years on civil service reform has mostly consisted of Ministers deciding the answer to every problem is to have more Ministerial/political oversight/control over everything. But often that's the problem. My personal view (maybe I'm biased as a long-time civil servant, maybe just a purist) is that everyone would be better off if Ministers has no say whatsoever in any civil service appointments.
We certainly wouldn't have had any of the Mandelson-related problems if that was the case. Or at least, if the PM wants to give Mandelson a role he can give him a political appointment, rather than turning a very important civil service job into a political appointment.
I absolutely agree. I would have been a hopeless ambassador and recognise that they are very very good at what they do and it's hard to image that any political appointee would be much better. There have been occasional successes in the past but, if I remember rightly, they were al very well 'house trained'.
Perhaps worth your considering the general impression given by this incident on the ultimate centre of power and how it contributes. Many highly educated talented individuals, and multiple legal consultations, with a very slow outcome and little evident effect on risk or mitigation. More broadly it is somewhat frustrating that there is no comment by parliamentarians, Whitehall or journalists (let alone action) on the thousands of key empty roles and talented individuals, many of the best simply take other jobs whilst waiting security clearance, due to the unacceptable and inexplicable delays.
Thanks Tom. That's a good point. Those who understand the system are often quite poor at explaining it to others and slow to recognise the need for improvement.
Nicely done Martin. I don't want to muddy the waters, but note that everyone should have been on high alert in this case. I can't help wondering if we are missing something other than - everyone was really busy, or newly appointed, or whatever.
As an aside, being busy does not cut it as an excuse of course but sometimes knowing a bit more about what else was going on can provide useful context.
Was communication failure central here? I decline to speculate, but you are right to highlight it. We have both witnessed too many communication failures (with often unpleasant results).
I wish the civil service would find the courage to improve fair accountability on the one hand (with political support and direction) while also resisting the urge to (unfairly) lop someone's head off.
Thanks Robin. I think you are right. There were lots of ingredients in this disaster. In particular, no-one seems to have taken time out to reflect on what was happening and how change the momentum of events. I'll try to add this to the permanent version of the blog.
Couldn't agree more!
I will try to bring out Olly's newness in post rather more in the permanent version of the article - plus every official's keenness to protect and defend ministers.
Antonia Romeo's newness in post might also be a factor, but it wasn't a good start to her tenure!
As someone who was never in the Civil Service, I'm fascinated by (and grateful for) your insight that it is not astonishing that the national security mitigations for Mandelson were designed by two people who were relying on briefings without access to the underlying report.
I wonder whether you might also have views on Sir Olly's explanation to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he did not brief the Cabinet Secretary in any way at all, except to say that clearance was given, because to have done so would, in effect, be passing on responsibility for the decision. I didn't feel confident about commenting on this in my own post, but as a matter of simple logic, I find myself thinking that Sir Olly's point (that sharing information upwards has the effect of sharing some of the responsibility) depends on sharing SUFFICIENT information for the senior colleague to be in a position to make the decision.
Would it really have been passing the buck for Sir Olly to have said: "In light of the information I received - and which I cannot pass on to you - I concluded that mitigations were necessary. They have been put in place and clearance has been given."? Any thoughts on that?
I can't help but feel there's an underlying issue that doesn't get discussed enough in this - why was the Prime Minister appointing the US Ambassador in the first place? I feel the direction of travel over the past 15 years on civil service reform has mostly consisted of Ministers deciding the answer to every problem is to have more Ministerial/political oversight/control over everything. But often that's the problem. My personal view (maybe I'm biased as a long-time civil servant, maybe just a purist) is that everyone would be better off if Ministers has no say whatsoever in any civil service appointments.
We certainly wouldn't have had any of the Mandelson-related problems if that was the case. Or at least, if the PM wants to give Mandelson a role he can give him a political appointment, rather than turning a very important civil service job into a political appointment.
I absolutely agree. I would have been a hopeless ambassador and recognise that they are very very good at what they do and it's hard to image that any political appointee would be much better. There have been occasional successes in the past but, if I remember rightly, they were al very well 'house trained'.
Absolutely. A first class ambassador was already in post and had good working relationships with both sides of the political aisle.
Perhaps worth your considering the general impression given by this incident on the ultimate centre of power and how it contributes. Many highly educated talented individuals, and multiple legal consultations, with a very slow outcome and little evident effect on risk or mitigation. More broadly it is somewhat frustrating that there is no comment by parliamentarians, Whitehall or journalists (let alone action) on the thousands of key empty roles and talented individuals, many of the best simply take other jobs whilst waiting security clearance, due to the unacceptable and inexplicable delays.
Thanks Tom. That's a good point. Those who understand the system are often quite poor at explaining it to others and slow to recognise the need for improvement.
Nicely done Martin. I don't want to muddy the waters, but note that everyone should have been on high alert in this case. I can't help wondering if we are missing something other than - everyone was really busy, or newly appointed, or whatever.
As an aside, being busy does not cut it as an excuse of course but sometimes knowing a bit more about what else was going on can provide useful context.
Was communication failure central here? I decline to speculate, but you are right to highlight it. We have both witnessed too many communication failures (with often unpleasant results).
I wish the civil service would find the courage to improve fair accountability on the one hand (with political support and direction) while also resisting the urge to (unfairly) lop someone's head off.
Thanks Robin. I think you are right. There were lots of ingredients in this disaster. In particular, no-one seems to have taken time out to reflect on what was happening and how change the momentum of events. I'll try to add this to the permanent version of the blog.