The writer is director, Institute for Government
Britain’s political class is accustomed to financial inefficiency being grounds for dismissal. Even though it was Nadim Zahawi’s lack of openness rather than an actual tax error that led to his rejection from cabinet, the Conservative Party chair’s exit seemed inevitable. Most of his colleagues – if not himself – accept that there should be consequences for ministers who break rules relating to their finances.
There is no level of acceptance regarding punishment for ministers who bully. The tone was set after Boris Johnson refused to sack Priti Patel from cabinet after his own ethics adviser found she had bullied his civil servants. After taking office, Rishi Sunak also opposed the sacking of Gavin Williamson, until pressure forced the Cabinet Office minister to resign over offensive text messages to the former chief whip.
Now, a pre-emptive briefing by senior Tories ahead of the conclusion of Adam Tolley Casey’s investigation into bullying claims against Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab – which he denied – is an alternative narrative about civil servants “awakening” with a vengeance Presents.
While the prime minister’s spokesman has declined to confirm that Sunak was aware of informal complaints against Raab when he appointed him, his former aide Jacob Rees-Mogg has denied complaints from civil servants. was dismissed as “snowflake”. Rees-Mogg claimed that Raab was demanding good service from “senior and well-paid professionals” despite not knowing the identity and grade of the complainants or the nature of their complaints. Senior backbencher Sir Bernard Jenkin sought to draw a distinction between “many people who are unable to bully” and those who are “very easily bullied”, arguing, “If you’re at the top of the civil service and ministers Working together, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
These comments minimize the physical, psychological and professional harm caused by bullying and try to shift the blame from the perpetrator to the target. They suggest a hierarchy of resilience among those who are bullied, implying that the weak complain and the strong who remain silent. The reverse is true – only the bravest civil servants dare to stand up to powerful politicians. Surely where we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior shouldn’t be determined by a person’s reaction?
Dismissingly, Jenkin described bullying as “a fairly new workplace wellness issue”. He is correct that it was only in the wake of the #MeToo scandal that some settings – including Westminster – have accepted that powerful people should not be allowed to use it to harm others. But they are wrong in implying that late recognition of harmful behavior diminishes its importance.
In the case of misogyny or racism, the harm caused by bullying was real before mechanisms were in place for victims to object. I know many illustrious public servants whose careers were ended by hooligans of all political affiliations before a new independent system for adjudicating bullying claims began to redress the imbalance of power. Previous generations of officers had no meaningful way of flagging complaints, but that doesn’t mean they were any less able to “bully”.
While acknowledging that the financial impropriety is serious, some Conservatives apparently believe that ministers are due a deference that exempts them from normal standards of behaviour. Sunak’s ministerial code should dissuade him from this, as does stating that “harassment, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour” will not be tolerated. Instead it emphasizes that ministers should always treat others “with consideration and respect”. Even if members of their government do not understand or acknowledge the impact of their behavior on others, the code makes clear that it is they, not those who work for them, who are accountable.
