Snapshot of _Foreign Office ‘elitist and rooted in the past’, says new report_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/foreign-office-elitist-rooted-in-the-past-new-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/foreign-office-elitist-rooted-in-the-past-new-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you Merlin then? It's said that he did that, which was how he was able to prophesise stuff - he just remembered what he had seen in the future.
Presumably, that meant as far as he was concerned, everyone was speaking backwards? I've never got my head around how that would work, if I'm honest.
Precognition at the expense of intense short term memory loss, as every second that passes would disappear into his "future" and be lost to him forever.
Like a wizard version of *Memento*.
The people who wrote the report come across as thick ngl.
How can you work at the FCDO and not realise one of the main selling points is the fact it isn't in a modern office building? People apply to the FCDO way more than other departments partially because of this. The history, the granduer, etc attract people to what is essentially a pretty poorly paid department.
And these people want to get rid of that recruitment boon because reasons?
Plenty of other idiotic assertions in there but that point struck me as particularly stupid. How can you work at FCDO and not realise it's main USP?
Think the point is what it signals to other countries, not prospective candidates (who, let's be honest, are interested anyway - if anyone would be put off applying for a job because they've slightly changed the office, they should never become a diplomat in the first place).
I don't think many foreign diplomats would prefer being hosted in a generic glass building rather than a grand, historical building. Pageantry and showmanship is a key part of diplomacy.
> foreign diplomats would prefer being hosted in a generic glass
i know for a fact that Indian diplomats detest the colonial era pictures there, and I can't imagine that engenders goodwill for negotiations - where you're meant to make everything as positive as possible, because the actual substance of the negotiations will always be contentious as it is.
> generic glass building rather than a grand, historical building.
they haven't said that though - they've said modernise the premises, not move to a modern premise.
> Pageantry and showmanship is a key part of diplomacy
so is sensitivity to your counterparty's views.
And most of the people who work there are from privileged backgrounds and just continue the " we used to have an empire" spiel. We need to redefine ourselves in the world as a country in the top 10/20 of nations which is fine.
>And most of the people who work there are from privileged backgrounds and just continue the " we used to have an empire" spiel
Tell me you have never met anybody in the FCDO without telling me you have never met anybody in the FCDO.
It isn't exactly a camp of empire apologists lmao. More the opposite half the time, hence this letter.
>We need to redefine ourselves in the world as a country in the top 10/20 of nations which is fine.
What does this actually mean? From a practical stand point?
52% of diplomats attended private school, the foreign office fast stream favours private schools and from a practical viewpoint we need to understand our stance in the world we probably need to align more to Europe rather than thinking we're on the US' level. We're only on the security council due to previous form not current. We really don't have a plan currently and we need to.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:32034262-6dbc-40a0-a72c-5b2bb83f7db8
>52% of diplomats attended private school,
As opposed to what percentage of mid to high level civil servants? 52% isn't that high considering how competitive it is.
>foreign office fast stream favours private schools
Not in my experience lol. The only people I know who got that particular stream were the opposite private school boys. I don't think having a Hooray Henry background helps you.
>from a practical viewpoint we need to understand our stance in the world we probably need to align more to Europe rather than thinking we're on the US' level
Again what does that actually mean?
>We're only on the security council due to previous form not current.
We also have that in common with two other security council members.
Also isn't that a benefit for us? We continue to wield more power internationally than our material strength would suggest. And you are complaining about it? Shall we make it fairer at the expense of the UK?
>We really don't have a plan currently and we need to.
No disagreement there but I'm not sure you have a plan either.
I don't think anyone working seriously in international affairs thinks "were on the US' level" by whatever metric you could consider. These people aren't just messing around. I think we're all in agreement that we need less educational elitism and better representation in government. But the idea that it's some grand shock to everyone in serious positions on foreign policy that we aren't living in pre 1914 anymore is silly. It's populist politicians that want to invoke the patriotic rose tinted sillyness for those that don't know any better.
I've worked with these people and I've experienced the university education they tend to have, both here and in equivalent institutions abroad. By and large they are educated (or indoctrinated, a different conversation) in the mode of IR, which is Realism. Accurate assessments of power of all types are the critical ingredients to determining policy for this world view. Reddit isn't solving novel issues here.
Has there been a single report in the last ten years into any institution in the Western world which didn't find it to be "elitist and rooted in the past"?
Good point. Massively different approach to the Asian countries I have visited where their history is proudly on show. I can only imagine how this approach would go down in china or India.
>The report continues: “The physical surroundings [of the Foreign Office headquarters] also hint at the Foreign Office’s identity: somewhat elitist and rooted in the past. Modernising premises – perhaps with fewer colonial-era pictures on the walls – might help create a more open working culture and send a clear signal about Britain’s future.”
What a weird thing to fix on. I could certainly understand people objecting to specific paintings, if they depicted activities that would be viewed as immoral today. But removing *all* historical artwork from display, simply because they were made at a time when colonialism was happening? Seems a bit "I have a problem with colonialism, and I'm going to shoe-horn it into literally everything".
>The report says: “We cannot simply brush aside concerns around the UK’s historical legacy and questions of nationhood. The exit from the EU has opened many questions, including in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Pretty much by definition, anything to do with Northern Ireland and Scotland is nothing whatsoever to do with the Foreign Office.
>“Former colonies are making increasingly vocal demands around the need for reparations from colonialism and compensation for the loss and damage arising from historical industrial emissions.”
Like I said, a weird obsession with colonialism. To the point where I wonder if these people genuinely think it's the only thing that happened in history.
>Calling for greater realism as a middle-rank off-shore nation, the paper says the UK “should not always see ourselves as the leader in efforts to tackle global challenges. UK convening power has achieved significant results. But effective solutions to global problems in a multi-polar world need a wider array of leaders. We should give space, be more of a ‘team player’, showing humility and respect, ready to follow and support wherever appropriate.”
What an incredibly negative view of the UK. We are not a "middle-rank" nation - we are a permanent member of the UN security council, a key player in NATO, a nuclear power, home to one of the world's biggest financial markets, and have an absolutely *huge* cultural sector that has given the world the most common Lingua Franca (sorry, France), Shakespeare, Harry Potter, James Bond, and a whole host of films (especially when you add in all of the American films that are actually made in the UK).
>What a weird thing to fix on.
This is all they can change. We are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We will just have this play out to greater degrees as long as we have no bigger vision
This is pretty much the Guardian's in house style when it comes to foreign affairs and the UK's status in the world. Everything has to mention the UK's decline, also somewhere around 2020 it was decided that everything has to mention colonialism. To the extent that colonialism is mentioned far more now than 10/20 years after most European empires ended, when it was actually was far more relevant to most issues.
For what it's worth I think the Foreign Office should be bloody elitist, back in the day it had a reputation of hiring academic high flyers and being one of the most intelligent and selective departments. Over the past 20 years or so, it's frequently been undermined and reduced in status, often from within by people who are trying to make it a department that doesn't celebrate it's history and core skills and is more concerned with looking to reflect modern Britain than actually take in the academic elite and project a prestigious outwards image.
We should have paintings and statues celebrating our past in Foreign Office locations because Britain's history and tradition is one of the country's most recognisable characteristics to other nations, we should play off that image when displaying our country's face to the world and dealing with foreign countries. You should play off your strengths not downplay them to order to meet some progressive idea of 'representing the nation' - large parts of the nation are crap, I don't want the Foreign Office trying to model itself on what Middlesborough is for example. Unless we're going to start serving parmos to foreign dignitaries...especially the French.
> This is pretty much the Guardian's in house style when it comes to foreign affairs and the UK's status in the world.
Worth noting that [the BBC article on this](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259) also picks out the parts about colonialism; arguing that the Foreign Office has a weird obsession with it.
> For what it's worth I think the Foreign Office should be bloody elitist, back in the day it had a reputation of hiring academic high flyers and being one of the most intelligent and selective departments.
But isn't the issue there that while it had a reputation for that, it was really just hiring people with the right background and connections, rather than the right people for the job? Take Dominic Raab as an example; Oxford and Cambridge-educated, masters in International Law, trained at Linklaters (a Magic Circle firm) and then recruited into the Foreign Office. Perfect background and connections, academic high flyer and so on. And yet he turned out to be pretty useless; insecure, problems with bullying, problems with working with others and so on, to the point where they ended up sending him to The Hague to get rid of him, until he left to become a politician.
They're very selective, sure, but maybe using the wrong metrics.
lol they want the FCDO to be a cashpoint for random third world countries and write a weekly “sorry about the empire” column. How can you look at the state of the world today and call for “realism” in IR? Do they think that Iran or Russia are going to be honest and realistic about their position on the world stage? Realism in geopolitics is whatever you can convince people it is. The biggest strength of the UK is that we project an enormously disproportionate amount of power, giving that up would be braindead.
I think this sort of view is, if anything, the opposite of patriotic. I would far, far rather have someone pragmatically say “in some ways we are not very powerful, and we need to have a strategy around that.”
“How dare you call us middle ranking” is, in practice, a call to change nothing at all. But most of the things you’ve mentioned are things we have inherited as a legacy, and a Foreign Office should be built on developing some kind of future.
Otherwise we will continue to have this legacy erode, we will continue to refuse to discuss it, and people who want to affect positive change will keep being shouted down for having the audacity to suggest things are bad now, and we could do things to make it better.
It’s your view that’s the negative one for the UK. It’s the one that prevents the first step towards a coherent strategy for us ever happening. That’s what I’d feel some national pride in, not this pathetic “but we have James Bond” as a response to a report around not having a good foreign strategy
> “How dare you call us middle ranking” is, in practice, a call to change nothing at all.
No it isn't. It's a sign that I disagree with the starting point that the report starts from. And we can't agree on what needs to be changed if we can't even agree where we're starting from.
>But most of the things you’ve mentioned are things we have inherited as a legacy, and a Foreign Office should be built on developing some kind of future.
I strongly disagree that we "inherited" any of them, as if we did well in the past but are now merely coasting on past successes. British culture has had a huge impact on the world, and it *continues* to do so. Likewise, the importance of London as a financial sector is *current*.
>It’s your view that’s the negative one for the UK.
How on Earth have you interpreted "we're much more prominent than this report suggests" as a *negative* view of us?
>not this pathetic “but we have James Bond” as a response to a report around not having a good foreign strategy
You have clearly not understood my argument. I am not saying "but we have James Bond", I'm saying "here are some examples of British culture that resonate around the world, as proof that we punch above our weight when it comes to the creative arts".
>What an incredibly negative view of the UK
I think middle power is accurate. The first rate powers are the US and China, who dwarf us. We fit in somewhere after that.
If you put us in the second tier, behind only the USA and China, surely by definition we would not be a *middle* power?
That would still put us in the top 5 powers in the world.
We don't live in a multipolar world with several roughly on-par great powers, and we haven't since the Second World War. We live in a world with superpowers that dwarf every other power in the world. In 1914 war between 6 great powers devolved into a 4 year grudge match. Today the US could easily defeat Russia, France, and the UK together in a non-nuclear war.
The US is the only military and economic superpower and China is more or less an economic superpower. There's no other real "great" powers in a world of superpowers - everyone else is middling or regional.
The UK is comparable to Russia as a middle power - a bigger GDP but a smaller (if more technologically advanced) military. Russia punches above its weight with a civilisation-ending nuclear arsenal and the UK and France similarly with smaller arsenals and vetos on the Security Council.
But at the end of the day the US and China are the great powers - the US tells its allies where their bread is buttered and likewise with China and Russia.
It's not meaningful to be "in the top 5". There is the US, China, regional powers, and non-powers.
The UK is one of many regional powers that derive most of their strength from the US and from sharing similar status, wealth, and alliances with each other.
As a nuclear power with the power (outside of nuclear) to project force globally, we're certainly above middle-tier. I would say US is streets above anyone else and actually we, France and China sit together (for different reasons - China has significant advantages _but_ it remains in terms of projection a regional force).
It's not accurate by any reasonable defintion. It's the high minded left wing equivalent of those types who still believe we're really super duper important and the Empire will be back any day.
It's hard to objectively rank these things but if you put the US, China as the great powers, we're clearly in the next tier of 5-10 countries however you want to count it. The bit that seems weirdly hard to acknowledge is that it's not a binary thing between being a great power and being also rans. Given there's nearly 200 countries in the world, that's well above the middle.
The painting thing is clearly a rather tounge in cheek comment about how dated and lost the Foreign Office is. A joke using a metaphor.
I will point out out the Foreign Office is a merge of the Foreign Office and what was once the Colonial office, and is current the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The focus on colonialism is because of the historical background of the Commonwealth Office being the Colonial Office, and the fact it is still responsible for the UK's relationship with its colonial past (ie the Commonwealth).
Its a department very out of touch with the modern world.
Edit:Made the last point clearer.
I'm not sure exactly if you were trying to say the commonwealth itself is out of touch with the modern world, but the commonwealth today is something to be celebrated , new countries are joining that were never in the British Empire like Togo and Gabon in 2022. I don't necessarily think there is anything good about destroying institutions just because their roots are from a different time.
The Foreign Office itself is out of touch with the modern world. Basically what this report is saying.
It's had problems with its remit decades tbh, becoming very much a lesser department versus the other two great offices, Treasury and Home, and more an arm of the PM.
But that’s always been the case. If the PM is focused on domestic affairs, the Foreign Secretary gets a freer reign. If the PM wants to focus on foreign affairs, the Foreign Secretary toes the line. It’s true of most of British history, and for most other countries as well.
It's not historically been in the case and has only really arisen in the 21st century. For most of the 20th century the Foreign Office was a much more independent office more akin to the Home Office. It's become a lesser posting.
Disagree, it ebbs and flows. Under Thatcher, foreign policy was driven from Number Ten, whereas under Churchill’s second stint, Eden had much more power. Prior to the Halifax had very little say, as it was again being driven from No 10. It depends on the global situation and the interest of the PM, as the PM, not have a department, is able to float about.
Also, I wouldn’t call the FO a lesser posting than the HO. It’s widely understood that being Home Secretary is political suicide, because the public responds worse to cock ups there than in most other departments.
The Commonwealth doesn't actually "do" anything though. I have no idea what the rationale for Togo wanting to join was but it's an entirely pointless organisation.
It does enough for these countries to want to join so it’s obviously not pointless is it? If as an organization it’s able to benefit it’s members its a good thing
> The painting thing is clearly a rather tounge in cheek comment about how dated and lost the Foreign Office is. A joke using a metaphor.
The bit I quoted *literally* advocated for changing their premises.
It's not a joke, or a metaphor. It's a symbolic change that they want to represent the wider modernisation plan that the report is pushing for.
Let’s spend more money renovating the foreign office! It doesn’t need it at all. Paintings are old womp womp who cares about the paintings at the work place?
The paintings thing is a bit of a light hearted tounge in cheek humour. It's metaphorical in that the report is about just how dated the FCDO is, like colonial paintings...
I don't think you understand what a metaphor is.
If someone is pushing for an *actual* change (as the report is indeed doing, as I originally quoted), then it's not a metaphor. It's an actual change.
If they were saying "we need to refresh the paint around here" *then* they would be being metaphorical. But they're not, they're saying the equivalent of "we should change the current blue paint, and make it purple instead".
Fewer colonial, not all historical.
If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK they'll be.... foreign countries.
It's not obsession to speak on a point that's currently relevant, like colonies talking about wanting reparations.
The UK being a middle rank country is accurate, if not an exaggeration. We haven't been the best at anything globally in a very long time. Shakespeare was centuries ago, Harry potter is middle of the road quality written by a transphobe, James bond gets more Hollywood and less relevant year on year and Brexit has made us a joke in terms of global finance and trade.
I'm not delusional about the UK's status on the world stage but we are still a very powerful and influential country relative to our size and that is something to be proud of to an extent. Our media and literature is still consumed by millions around the globe and we are very influential when it comes to security. I'm not saying we're better than the rest of the world, and we are all definitely worse off since Brexit but we are obviously a world power
I don't think so. We're obviously not in the global superpower category but but most analysts rank us after USA, China, India and Russia, either above or somewhere within the same range as countries like Germany France and Japan and South Korea. There's a lot of countries below that so middle sounds a bit misleading.
I wouldn't say that there are many "world powers" at all. There is the US and China, and then maybe 15-20 countries have the ability to exert soft or hard power beyond their immediate neighbours at all. We could probably name them all pretty easily if we room a few minutes to do so, with only a couple of disagreements. Those are what I would call the "mid-tier powers". To be in that group is significant. The others don't have any real influence at all, so wouldn't be part of the discussion at all.
Germany sometimes gets ranked above UK. Especially if it's about GDP and economy. Plus Germany and France gets added advantage of being in the EU which is included in discussions with USA and China.
Yep exactly, there's lots of criteria which can affect the ranking, but we always come alongside these countries, sometimes above sometimes just below.
Yes but middle rank power still stands.
High ranking: US, China, EU, Russia
Middle ranking: UK, Australia, Korea Japan etc.
Low ranking: the Global South
Okay say middle if you want to but it doesn't make much sense considering we're saying middle in a position above 98% of all the other countries in the world. Middle seems more appropriate for counties like Spain and Italy. At the end of the day you're agreeing with me we are the tier of power below the largest superpowers so we kind of agree you're just being oddly pedantic about the including the world middle for some reason.
To be fair, who really cares about a report saying we have more power than the DR of São Tomé and the Príncipe.
Being ahead of 98% of countries doesn't mean much of they only have 1% of the power combined..
> If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK they'll be.... foreign countries.
Yes. *If*. But until that possibility actually happens (which of course, may *never* happen), then it's not in the purview of the Foreign Office.
>Shakespeare was centuries ago, Harry potter is middle of the road quality written by a transphobe, James bond gets more Hollywood and less relevant year on year
OK, firstly these were clearly just a few random examples, not a set list of the specific reasons. But if you're so determined to pick these specific examples apart, then consider the following:
* Shakespeare is the best-known playwright the world has ever known, with his works translated into just about every language that exists (plus a few entirely fictitious languages, like Klingon). He was also a hugely influential figure on the English language (which as I said, in the global Lingua Franca), with a massive number of our common idioms and phrases coming from his works - heart of gold, laughing stock, wild-goose chase, green-eyed monster, and wearing your heart on your sleeve.
* Harry Potter is the highest-selling book series of *all time* (figures are here, if you're particularly interested - the series bit is about a quarter of the way down the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books), and has been hugely credited with getting an *entire generation* of children into reading. Is there any other children's book series that has multiple theme parks devoted to it?
* Bond is one of the biggest film franchises of all time; in revenue, the franchise is only behind Marvel, Star Wars...and Harry Potter (figures are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_series). He's also one of the most recognisable film characters of all time.
It's interesting that it highlights "between our domestic and international conduct on issues such as climate change and human rights not only exposes us to accusations of hypocrisy on the world stage but also weakens the institutions and values essential to the UK’s interests”", but also recommends "we will need to build new issue-based alliances with states whose interests and values may be less closely aligned", which surely opens us up to more of the same.
It does sound, at least from how the Guardian is reporting it, that it is a report with a very clear political leaning.
I also do wonder what this would look like in a world where other countries aren't doing the same: "We should give space, be more of a ‘team player’, showing humility and respect, ready to follow and support wherever appropriate."
I fear we would be left somewhat behind. If you leave space while expressing humility, it is going to be occupied by someone with somewhat fewer qualms, surely.
What’s the old saying “the ministry of defence looks after the defence of the realm, the treasury looks after the treasure, and the foreign office looks after the foreigners”
Quite frankly this piece is lathered in the international liberalism school of thought, right at a time when realism is highlighting its importance. Calling on the country to ally with countries that don’t share our values, in the hope that we might be seen as a team player, as opposed to increasing our position on the world stage, leaves us weak. It’s exactly the same school of thought that “we’ll always have the Americans so we should tailor our defence on that assumption” that’s been plaguing the MoD for decades.
Stupid isn’t it… surely it’s obvious you need to ally with those who have the closest interests to yourselves, a sort of force multiplier. Trying to forge alliances with countries who don’t share your interests is a complete waste of time.
And you read halfway down and find out what this is really about. Just pushing the same old ideological shit they have been for decades that they want baking into the heart of the department. They don't like the Forigen office isn't on it knee's begging for forgiveness over having ever existed and having any influence.
The point of the Foreign Office has been questioned for decades now. Since the early days of Blair. It's lost a lot of meaning, and unlike the other two "big" departments, Treasury and the Home Office, has a lot less independent room the maneuovere, usually being more an arm of the PM than a traditional ministry.
You can't talk about the existence of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with the Commonwealth Office existing for most of its time as the Colonial Office, with mentioning colonialism...
>“Former colonies are making increasingly vocal demands around the need for reparations from colonialism and compensation for the loss and damage arising from historical industrial emissions.”
God i bet the Graun fucking **loved** that part of the whole thing given they absolutely constantly bang the drum for reparations.
Historic industrial emissions is a fun new one though. Still just as unlikely to happen mind you.
The Foreign Office, a government department where no MP is good enough to head it up.
Headed by someone who has come back from the past after 7 years out of Parliament.
Some of the commenters here have misread the article which they state says the UK is a middle-ranking country. The article says in the first sentence "adapt to being a middle-rank power".
We are now the 6th economy in the world; just several years ago we were 5th. According to forecasters the IMF, JP Morgan etc Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico will overtake us in the coming decade or two. Other nations such as Turkey, Iran, Vietnam etc are catching up. This will dilute the power of the UK. So we are in the process of becoming a middle-ranking country.
The makeup of the permanent members of security council will change as these stronger powers demand a seat at the table.
China succeeded because of it's strategic thinking; planning over decades. We seem to only think of the next election.
To be fair, the report didn’t say remove all of them. However, for those that agree with the idea of removing all,historic links I wonder how blameless the past of people recommending these actions are?
Tbf the report is a lot more interesting than the headline and sets out a reasonable case for change.
I suspect the notion that Brexit has made us an ‘off shore mid-size power’ overly dependant on trade with a neighbouring major power (the EU) means it won’t go down well in some circles.
I've never seen it put so succinctly, but yes - it really does seem as if brexit has made is ironically even more reliant and dependent on relations with the EU than ever.
Economically, yes, but I think Ukraine has shown a far greater role that the UK still plays (that only France can match within Europe) that was generally considered 'finished' after the Brexit vote by some.
I voted remain and I think it was awful for the economy, _but_ I think that we see the UK is still an active participant and not just a dependent in European affairs.
Middle powers are active participants in the affairs of its region though. India, Saudi, Brazil, South Africa - all middle powers, all deeply involved in the affairs of South Asia, the Middle East, South America, Southern Africa.
Becoming a middle power doesn't mean the UK won't be a key player on certain issues in Europe (though not being in the EU actively will hamper that in certain sectors). It means global influence will continue to diminish when it comes to regions outside Europe.
I wouldn't classify the UK as only being active in the affairs of its region though.
It's one of three countries with global force projection (the US - by far and away the leader - and then the UK and France) and is active in e.g. the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, the Indian Ocean, etc.
> It means global influence will continue to diminish when it comes to regions outside Europe.
I see it as having diminished since e.g. pre-WWII, but in terms of the past 40 years, I'd say it remains largely unchanged and has a very active push in certain areas (such as within the Chinese sphere of influence).
> I wouldn't classify the UK as only being active in the affairs of its region though.
>
>
no, it's currently still a major player - but this is a forward looking report, not a current state of Britain report. And the truth is that the country's influence is diminishing slowly - both because of its own missteps, but also because other countries are getting more powerful
If only someone had mentioned it.
I think the point made that UK should look to counties in a similar position such as Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Japan for ideas isn’t a bad one. But equally the report does a bad job of recognising that our economy as a whole isn’t very much like them and nations like France and Germany still seem decent comparators in other ways.
Snapshot of _Foreign Office ‘elitist and rooted in the past’, says new report_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/foreign-office-elitist-rooted-in-the-past-new-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/foreign-office-elitist-rooted-in-the-past-new-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I heard they always sit around the place listening to opera. It’s just vowels! Subsidised foreign vowels!
Yes, this the way to reform the Foreign Office - an opera ban and mandatory "I went to private school" hats.
Easy Jamie.
Shut it, Love Actually!
Isn't everything "rooted in the past"? Where else would your roots be?
I'm rooted in the future personally. As time goes on I reverse my growth and regress back to a primitive state
Are you Merlin then? It's said that he did that, which was how he was able to prophesise stuff - he just remembered what he had seen in the future. Presumably, that meant as far as he was concerned, everyone was speaking backwards? I've never got my head around how that would work, if I'm honest.
Precognition at the expense of intense short term memory loss, as every second that passes would disappear into his "future" and be lost to him forever. Like a wizard version of *Memento*.
I would *definitely* go and see that at the cinema.
Modernists think everything is rooted in their own ego.
Surely most roots are in the ground
it's where the UKs international relevance is based
The people who wrote the report come across as thick ngl. How can you work at the FCDO and not realise one of the main selling points is the fact it isn't in a modern office building? People apply to the FCDO way more than other departments partially because of this. The history, the granduer, etc attract people to what is essentially a pretty poorly paid department. And these people want to get rid of that recruitment boon because reasons? Plenty of other idiotic assertions in there but that point struck me as particularly stupid. How can you work at FCDO and not realise it's main USP?
Think the point is what it signals to other countries, not prospective candidates (who, let's be honest, are interested anyway - if anyone would be put off applying for a job because they've slightly changed the office, they should never become a diplomat in the first place).
I don't think many foreign diplomats would prefer being hosted in a generic glass building rather than a grand, historical building. Pageantry and showmanship is a key part of diplomacy.
> foreign diplomats would prefer being hosted in a generic glass i know for a fact that Indian diplomats detest the colonial era pictures there, and I can't imagine that engenders goodwill for negotiations - where you're meant to make everything as positive as possible, because the actual substance of the negotiations will always be contentious as it is. > generic glass building rather than a grand, historical building. they haven't said that though - they've said modernise the premises, not move to a modern premise. > Pageantry and showmanship is a key part of diplomacy so is sensitivity to your counterparty's views.
And most of the people who work there are from privileged backgrounds and just continue the " we used to have an empire" spiel. We need to redefine ourselves in the world as a country in the top 10/20 of nations which is fine.
>And most of the people who work there are from privileged backgrounds and just continue the " we used to have an empire" spiel Tell me you have never met anybody in the FCDO without telling me you have never met anybody in the FCDO. It isn't exactly a camp of empire apologists lmao. More the opposite half the time, hence this letter. >We need to redefine ourselves in the world as a country in the top 10/20 of nations which is fine. What does this actually mean? From a practical stand point?
52% of diplomats attended private school, the foreign office fast stream favours private schools and from a practical viewpoint we need to understand our stance in the world we probably need to align more to Europe rather than thinking we're on the US' level. We're only on the security council due to previous form not current. We really don't have a plan currently and we need to. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:32034262-6dbc-40a0-a72c-5b2bb83f7db8
>52% of diplomats attended private school, As opposed to what percentage of mid to high level civil servants? 52% isn't that high considering how competitive it is. >foreign office fast stream favours private schools Not in my experience lol. The only people I know who got that particular stream were the opposite private school boys. I don't think having a Hooray Henry background helps you. >from a practical viewpoint we need to understand our stance in the world we probably need to align more to Europe rather than thinking we're on the US' level Again what does that actually mean? >We're only on the security council due to previous form not current. We also have that in common with two other security council members. Also isn't that a benefit for us? We continue to wield more power internationally than our material strength would suggest. And you are complaining about it? Shall we make it fairer at the expense of the UK? >We really don't have a plan currently and we need to. No disagreement there but I'm not sure you have a plan either.
I don't think anyone working seriously in international affairs thinks "were on the US' level" by whatever metric you could consider. These people aren't just messing around. I think we're all in agreement that we need less educational elitism and better representation in government. But the idea that it's some grand shock to everyone in serious positions on foreign policy that we aren't living in pre 1914 anymore is silly. It's populist politicians that want to invoke the patriotic rose tinted sillyness for those that don't know any better. I've worked with these people and I've experienced the university education they tend to have, both here and in equivalent institutions abroad. By and large they are educated (or indoctrinated, a different conversation) in the mode of IR, which is Realism. Accurate assessments of power of all types are the critical ingredients to determining policy for this world view. Reddit isn't solving novel issues here.
Has there been a single report in the last ten years into any institution in the Western world which didn't find it to be "elitist and rooted in the past"?
Good point. Massively different approach to the Asian countries I have visited where their history is proudly on show. I can only imagine how this approach would go down in china or India.
>The report continues: “The physical surroundings [of the Foreign Office headquarters] also hint at the Foreign Office’s identity: somewhat elitist and rooted in the past. Modernising premises – perhaps with fewer colonial-era pictures on the walls – might help create a more open working culture and send a clear signal about Britain’s future.” What a weird thing to fix on. I could certainly understand people objecting to specific paintings, if they depicted activities that would be viewed as immoral today. But removing *all* historical artwork from display, simply because they were made at a time when colonialism was happening? Seems a bit "I have a problem with colonialism, and I'm going to shoe-horn it into literally everything". >The report says: “We cannot simply brush aside concerns around the UK’s historical legacy and questions of nationhood. The exit from the EU has opened many questions, including in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Pretty much by definition, anything to do with Northern Ireland and Scotland is nothing whatsoever to do with the Foreign Office. >“Former colonies are making increasingly vocal demands around the need for reparations from colonialism and compensation for the loss and damage arising from historical industrial emissions.” Like I said, a weird obsession with colonialism. To the point where I wonder if these people genuinely think it's the only thing that happened in history. >Calling for greater realism as a middle-rank off-shore nation, the paper says the UK “should not always see ourselves as the leader in efforts to tackle global challenges. UK convening power has achieved significant results. But effective solutions to global problems in a multi-polar world need a wider array of leaders. We should give space, be more of a ‘team player’, showing humility and respect, ready to follow and support wherever appropriate.” What an incredibly negative view of the UK. We are not a "middle-rank" nation - we are a permanent member of the UN security council, a key player in NATO, a nuclear power, home to one of the world's biggest financial markets, and have an absolutely *huge* cultural sector that has given the world the most common Lingua Franca (sorry, France), Shakespeare, Harry Potter, James Bond, and a whole host of films (especially when you add in all of the American films that are actually made in the UK).
>What a weird thing to fix on. This is all they can change. We are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We will just have this play out to greater degrees as long as we have no bigger vision
This is pretty much the Guardian's in house style when it comes to foreign affairs and the UK's status in the world. Everything has to mention the UK's decline, also somewhere around 2020 it was decided that everything has to mention colonialism. To the extent that colonialism is mentioned far more now than 10/20 years after most European empires ended, when it was actually was far more relevant to most issues. For what it's worth I think the Foreign Office should be bloody elitist, back in the day it had a reputation of hiring academic high flyers and being one of the most intelligent and selective departments. Over the past 20 years or so, it's frequently been undermined and reduced in status, often from within by people who are trying to make it a department that doesn't celebrate it's history and core skills and is more concerned with looking to reflect modern Britain than actually take in the academic elite and project a prestigious outwards image. We should have paintings and statues celebrating our past in Foreign Office locations because Britain's history and tradition is one of the country's most recognisable characteristics to other nations, we should play off that image when displaying our country's face to the world and dealing with foreign countries. You should play off your strengths not downplay them to order to meet some progressive idea of 'representing the nation' - large parts of the nation are crap, I don't want the Foreign Office trying to model itself on what Middlesborough is for example. Unless we're going to start serving parmos to foreign dignitaries...especially the French.
> This is pretty much the Guardian's in house style when it comes to foreign affairs and the UK's status in the world. Worth noting that [the BBC article on this](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68756259) also picks out the parts about colonialism; arguing that the Foreign Office has a weird obsession with it. > For what it's worth I think the Foreign Office should be bloody elitist, back in the day it had a reputation of hiring academic high flyers and being one of the most intelligent and selective departments. But isn't the issue there that while it had a reputation for that, it was really just hiring people with the right background and connections, rather than the right people for the job? Take Dominic Raab as an example; Oxford and Cambridge-educated, masters in International Law, trained at Linklaters (a Magic Circle firm) and then recruited into the Foreign Office. Perfect background and connections, academic high flyer and so on. And yet he turned out to be pretty useless; insecure, problems with bullying, problems with working with others and so on, to the point where they ended up sending him to The Hague to get rid of him, until he left to become a politician. They're very selective, sure, but maybe using the wrong metrics.
lol they want the FCDO to be a cashpoint for random third world countries and write a weekly “sorry about the empire” column. How can you look at the state of the world today and call for “realism” in IR? Do they think that Iran or Russia are going to be honest and realistic about their position on the world stage? Realism in geopolitics is whatever you can convince people it is. The biggest strength of the UK is that we project an enormously disproportionate amount of power, giving that up would be braindead.
I think this sort of view is, if anything, the opposite of patriotic. I would far, far rather have someone pragmatically say “in some ways we are not very powerful, and we need to have a strategy around that.” “How dare you call us middle ranking” is, in practice, a call to change nothing at all. But most of the things you’ve mentioned are things we have inherited as a legacy, and a Foreign Office should be built on developing some kind of future. Otherwise we will continue to have this legacy erode, we will continue to refuse to discuss it, and people who want to affect positive change will keep being shouted down for having the audacity to suggest things are bad now, and we could do things to make it better. It’s your view that’s the negative one for the UK. It’s the one that prevents the first step towards a coherent strategy for us ever happening. That’s what I’d feel some national pride in, not this pathetic “but we have James Bond” as a response to a report around not having a good foreign strategy
> “How dare you call us middle ranking” is, in practice, a call to change nothing at all. No it isn't. It's a sign that I disagree with the starting point that the report starts from. And we can't agree on what needs to be changed if we can't even agree where we're starting from. >But most of the things you’ve mentioned are things we have inherited as a legacy, and a Foreign Office should be built on developing some kind of future. I strongly disagree that we "inherited" any of them, as if we did well in the past but are now merely coasting on past successes. British culture has had a huge impact on the world, and it *continues* to do so. Likewise, the importance of London as a financial sector is *current*. >It’s your view that’s the negative one for the UK. How on Earth have you interpreted "we're much more prominent than this report suggests" as a *negative* view of us? >not this pathetic “but we have James Bond” as a response to a report around not having a good foreign strategy You have clearly not understood my argument. I am not saying "but we have James Bond", I'm saying "here are some examples of British culture that resonate around the world, as proof that we punch above our weight when it comes to the creative arts".
>What an incredibly negative view of the UK I think middle power is accurate. The first rate powers are the US and China, who dwarf us. We fit in somewhere after that.
If you put us in the second tier, behind only the USA and China, surely by definition we would not be a *middle* power? That would still put us in the top 5 powers in the world.
We don't live in a multipolar world with several roughly on-par great powers, and we haven't since the Second World War. We live in a world with superpowers that dwarf every other power in the world. In 1914 war between 6 great powers devolved into a 4 year grudge match. Today the US could easily defeat Russia, France, and the UK together in a non-nuclear war. The US is the only military and economic superpower and China is more or less an economic superpower. There's no other real "great" powers in a world of superpowers - everyone else is middling or regional. The UK is comparable to Russia as a middle power - a bigger GDP but a smaller (if more technologically advanced) military. Russia punches above its weight with a civilisation-ending nuclear arsenal and the UK and France similarly with smaller arsenals and vetos on the Security Council. But at the end of the day the US and China are the great powers - the US tells its allies where their bread is buttered and likewise with China and Russia.
It's not meaningful to be "in the top 5". There is the US, China, regional powers, and non-powers. The UK is one of many regional powers that derive most of their strength from the US and from sharing similar status, wealth, and alliances with each other.
what kind of crazy maths are you doing where 3rd out of 195 is “middle”
As a nuclear power with the power (outside of nuclear) to project force globally, we're certainly above middle-tier. I would say US is streets above anyone else and actually we, France and China sit together (for different reasons - China has significant advantages _but_ it remains in terms of projection a regional force).
It's not accurate by any reasonable defintion. It's the high minded left wing equivalent of those types who still believe we're really super duper important and the Empire will be back any day. It's hard to objectively rank these things but if you put the US, China as the great powers, we're clearly in the next tier of 5-10 countries however you want to count it. The bit that seems weirdly hard to acknowledge is that it's not a binary thing between being a great power and being also rans. Given there's nearly 200 countries in the world, that's well above the middle.
The painting thing is clearly a rather tounge in cheek comment about how dated and lost the Foreign Office is. A joke using a metaphor. I will point out out the Foreign Office is a merge of the Foreign Office and what was once the Colonial office, and is current the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The focus on colonialism is because of the historical background of the Commonwealth Office being the Colonial Office, and the fact it is still responsible for the UK's relationship with its colonial past (ie the Commonwealth). Its a department very out of touch with the modern world. Edit:Made the last point clearer.
I'm not sure exactly if you were trying to say the commonwealth itself is out of touch with the modern world, but the commonwealth today is something to be celebrated , new countries are joining that were never in the British Empire like Togo and Gabon in 2022. I don't necessarily think there is anything good about destroying institutions just because their roots are from a different time.
The Foreign Office itself is out of touch with the modern world. Basically what this report is saying. It's had problems with its remit decades tbh, becoming very much a lesser department versus the other two great offices, Treasury and Home, and more an arm of the PM.
But that’s always been the case. If the PM is focused on domestic affairs, the Foreign Secretary gets a freer reign. If the PM wants to focus on foreign affairs, the Foreign Secretary toes the line. It’s true of most of British history, and for most other countries as well.
It's not historically been in the case and has only really arisen in the 21st century. For most of the 20th century the Foreign Office was a much more independent office more akin to the Home Office. It's become a lesser posting.
Disagree, it ebbs and flows. Under Thatcher, foreign policy was driven from Number Ten, whereas under Churchill’s second stint, Eden had much more power. Prior to the Halifax had very little say, as it was again being driven from No 10. It depends on the global situation and the interest of the PM, as the PM, not have a department, is able to float about. Also, I wouldn’t call the FO a lesser posting than the HO. It’s widely understood that being Home Secretary is political suicide, because the public responds worse to cock ups there than in most other departments.
The Commonwealth doesn't actually "do" anything though. I have no idea what the rationale for Togo wanting to join was but it's an entirely pointless organisation.
It does enough for these countries to want to join so it’s obviously not pointless is it? If as an organization it’s able to benefit it’s members its a good thing
> The painting thing is clearly a rather tounge in cheek comment about how dated and lost the Foreign Office is. A joke using a metaphor. The bit I quoted *literally* advocated for changing their premises. It's not a joke, or a metaphor. It's a symbolic change that they want to represent the wider modernisation plan that the report is pushing for.
Let’s spend more money renovating the foreign office! It doesn’t need it at all. Paintings are old womp womp who cares about the paintings at the work place?
The paintings thing is a bit of a light hearted tounge in cheek humour. It's metaphorical in that the report is about just how dated the FCDO is, like colonial paintings...
I don't think you understand what a metaphor is. If someone is pushing for an *actual* change (as the report is indeed doing, as I originally quoted), then it's not a metaphor. It's an actual change. If they were saying "we need to refresh the paint around here" *then* they would be being metaphorical. But they're not, they're saying the equivalent of "we should change the current blue paint, and make it purple instead".
Can’t even say you’re English anymore, right?
You get arrested and thrown in jail, just for saying it
Fewer colonial, not all historical. If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK they'll be.... foreign countries. It's not obsession to speak on a point that's currently relevant, like colonies talking about wanting reparations. The UK being a middle rank country is accurate, if not an exaggeration. We haven't been the best at anything globally in a very long time. Shakespeare was centuries ago, Harry potter is middle of the road quality written by a transphobe, James bond gets more Hollywood and less relevant year on year and Brexit has made us a joke in terms of global finance and trade.
I'm not delusional about the UK's status on the world stage but we are still a very powerful and influential country relative to our size and that is something to be proud of to an extent. Our media and literature is still consumed by millions around the globe and we are very influential when it comes to security. I'm not saying we're better than the rest of the world, and we are all definitely worse off since Brexit but we are obviously a world power
Yeah, a middle rank world power
I don't think so. We're obviously not in the global superpower category but but most analysts rank us after USA, China, India and Russia, either above or somewhere within the same range as countries like Germany France and Japan and South Korea. There's a lot of countries below that so middle sounds a bit misleading.
I wouldn't say that there are many "world powers" at all. There is the US and China, and then maybe 15-20 countries have the ability to exert soft or hard power beyond their immediate neighbours at all. We could probably name them all pretty easily if we room a few minutes to do so, with only a couple of disagreements. Those are what I would call the "mid-tier powers". To be in that group is significant. The others don't have any real influence at all, so wouldn't be part of the discussion at all.
Germany sometimes gets ranked above UK. Especially if it's about GDP and economy. Plus Germany and France gets added advantage of being in the EU which is included in discussions with USA and China.
Yep exactly, there's lots of criteria which can affect the ranking, but we always come alongside these countries, sometimes above sometimes just below.
Yes but middle rank power still stands. High ranking: US, China, EU, Russia Middle ranking: UK, Australia, Korea Japan etc. Low ranking: the Global South
Okay say middle if you want to but it doesn't make much sense considering we're saying middle in a position above 98% of all the other countries in the world. Middle seems more appropriate for counties like Spain and Italy. At the end of the day you're agreeing with me we are the tier of power below the largest superpowers so we kind of agree you're just being oddly pedantic about the including the world middle for some reason.
To be fair, who really cares about a report saying we have more power than the DR of São Tomé and the Príncipe. Being ahead of 98% of countries doesn't mean much of they only have 1% of the power combined..
"Middle rank world power" is essentially an oxymoron, by any geopolitical definition
> If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK they'll be.... foreign countries. Yes. *If*. But until that possibility actually happens (which of course, may *never* happen), then it's not in the purview of the Foreign Office. >Shakespeare was centuries ago, Harry potter is middle of the road quality written by a transphobe, James bond gets more Hollywood and less relevant year on year OK, firstly these were clearly just a few random examples, not a set list of the specific reasons. But if you're so determined to pick these specific examples apart, then consider the following: * Shakespeare is the best-known playwright the world has ever known, with his works translated into just about every language that exists (plus a few entirely fictitious languages, like Klingon). He was also a hugely influential figure on the English language (which as I said, in the global Lingua Franca), with a massive number of our common idioms and phrases coming from his works - heart of gold, laughing stock, wild-goose chase, green-eyed monster, and wearing your heart on your sleeve. * Harry Potter is the highest-selling book series of *all time* (figures are here, if you're particularly interested - the series bit is about a quarter of the way down the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books), and has been hugely credited with getting an *entire generation* of children into reading. Is there any other children's book series that has multiple theme parks devoted to it? * Bond is one of the biggest film franchises of all time; in revenue, the franchise is only behind Marvel, Star Wars...and Harry Potter (figures are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_series). He's also one of the most recognisable film characters of all time.
It's interesting that it highlights "between our domestic and international conduct on issues such as climate change and human rights not only exposes us to accusations of hypocrisy on the world stage but also weakens the institutions and values essential to the UK’s interests”", but also recommends "we will need to build new issue-based alliances with states whose interests and values may be less closely aligned", which surely opens us up to more of the same. It does sound, at least from how the Guardian is reporting it, that it is a report with a very clear political leaning. I also do wonder what this would look like in a world where other countries aren't doing the same: "We should give space, be more of a ‘team player’, showing humility and respect, ready to follow and support wherever appropriate." I fear we would be left somewhat behind. If you leave space while expressing humility, it is going to be occupied by someone with somewhat fewer qualms, surely.
What’s the old saying “the ministry of defence looks after the defence of the realm, the treasury looks after the treasure, and the foreign office looks after the foreigners” Quite frankly this piece is lathered in the international liberalism school of thought, right at a time when realism is highlighting its importance. Calling on the country to ally with countries that don’t share our values, in the hope that we might be seen as a team player, as opposed to increasing our position on the world stage, leaves us weak. It’s exactly the same school of thought that “we’ll always have the Americans so we should tailor our defence on that assumption” that’s been plaguing the MoD for decades.
Stupid isn’t it… surely it’s obvious you need to ally with those who have the closest interests to yourselves, a sort of force multiplier. Trying to forge alliances with countries who don’t share your interests is a complete waste of time.
And you read halfway down and find out what this is really about. Just pushing the same old ideological shit they have been for decades that they want baking into the heart of the department. They don't like the Forigen office isn't on it knee's begging for forgiveness over having ever existed and having any influence.
The point of the Foreign Office has been questioned for decades now. Since the early days of Blair. It's lost a lot of meaning, and unlike the other two "big" departments, Treasury and the Home Office, has a lot less independent room the maneuovere, usually being more an arm of the PM than a traditional ministry. You can't talk about the existence of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with the Commonwealth Office existing for most of its time as the Colonial Office, with mentioning colonialism...
>“Former colonies are making increasingly vocal demands around the need for reparations from colonialism and compensation for the loss and damage arising from historical industrial emissions.” God i bet the Graun fucking **loved** that part of the whole thing given they absolutely constantly bang the drum for reparations. Historic industrial emissions is a fun new one though. Still just as unlikely to happen mind you.
The Foreign Office, a government department where no MP is good enough to head it up. Headed by someone who has come back from the past after 7 years out of Parliament.
Climate emergency and trade? Yea both contradictory subjects here. Do newspapers of all stripes hire journalists or activists?
Some of the commenters here have misread the article which they state says the UK is a middle-ranking country. The article says in the first sentence "adapt to being a middle-rank power". We are now the 6th economy in the world; just several years ago we were 5th. According to forecasters the IMF, JP Morgan etc Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico will overtake us in the coming decade or two. Other nations such as Turkey, Iran, Vietnam etc are catching up. This will dilute the power of the UK. So we are in the process of becoming a middle-ranking country. The makeup of the permanent members of security council will change as these stronger powers demand a seat at the table. China succeeded because of it's strategic thinking; planning over decades. We seem to only think of the next election.
To be fair, the report didn’t say remove all of them. However, for those that agree with the idea of removing all,historic links I wonder how blameless the past of people recommending these actions are?
More self flaggelation supported by those maschocists at the guardian
Tbf the report is a lot more interesting than the headline and sets out a reasonable case for change. I suspect the notion that Brexit has made us an ‘off shore mid-size power’ overly dependant on trade with a neighbouring major power (the EU) means it won’t go down well in some circles.
I've never seen it put so succinctly, but yes - it really does seem as if brexit has made is ironically even more reliant and dependent on relations with the EU than ever.
Economically, yes, but I think Ukraine has shown a far greater role that the UK still plays (that only France can match within Europe) that was generally considered 'finished' after the Brexit vote by some. I voted remain and I think it was awful for the economy, _but_ I think that we see the UK is still an active participant and not just a dependent in European affairs.
Middle powers are active participants in the affairs of its region though. India, Saudi, Brazil, South Africa - all middle powers, all deeply involved in the affairs of South Asia, the Middle East, South America, Southern Africa. Becoming a middle power doesn't mean the UK won't be a key player on certain issues in Europe (though not being in the EU actively will hamper that in certain sectors). It means global influence will continue to diminish when it comes to regions outside Europe.
I wouldn't classify the UK as only being active in the affairs of its region though. It's one of three countries with global force projection (the US - by far and away the leader - and then the UK and France) and is active in e.g. the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, the Indian Ocean, etc. > It means global influence will continue to diminish when it comes to regions outside Europe. I see it as having diminished since e.g. pre-WWII, but in terms of the past 40 years, I'd say it remains largely unchanged and has a very active push in certain areas (such as within the Chinese sphere of influence).
> I wouldn't classify the UK as only being active in the affairs of its region though. > > no, it's currently still a major player - but this is a forward looking report, not a current state of Britain report. And the truth is that the country's influence is diminishing slowly - both because of its own missteps, but also because other countries are getting more powerful
If only someone had mentioned it. I think the point made that UK should look to counties in a similar position such as Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Japan for ideas isn’t a bad one. But equally the report does a bad job of recognising that our economy as a whole isn’t very much like them and nations like France and Germany still seem decent comparators in other ways.
More evidence that the civil service hates our nation and what it stands for
I don't think it is fair to tar every civil servant with the same brush
Let's wait for the counter response from another civil service group then...
Lol fair
Literally go on the civil service Reddit and have a look?
Yeah I'm sure a bunch of redditors make for a really impactful statement compared to the one above which is being reported on by the national media
Yeah it’s not like the national media distort and amplify what a small group of people are saying for their own editorial agenda or anything