The slow death of the British Civil Service

A leak of memos detailing the low opinion Kim Darroch—the UK's ambassador to the US—has of Trump led the toddler in chief to attack the ambassador in a truly presidential manner. Darroch's—and England's—greatest humiliation, however, came at the hands of his own presumptive PM, who publicly threw him under the bus, setting an extremely harmful precedent that will no doubt send chills through the British civil service. Diplomats must be able to provide their governments with clear and honest assessments, and they can only do so if they can count on their govts to stand by them; Johnson's decision to throw loyalty to the wind, and debase both himself and his country before Trump, will undoubtedly have negative repercussions for the work done by the UK's civil servants. Deeply embarrassing, if you expect a PM to adhere to even the lowest standards of courage and integrity. Unsurprising once you recall how far England has fallen under the governance of the increasingly degenerate Conservative Party.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton...ch-resignation

Well. He would have been toast either way. Given that the UK and USA are friends extremely strong apologies for badmouthing Trump are unavoidable.
And there are no taking backsies on honest opinions. The right thing to do for May would have been to fire the ambassador.

What Hazir said. Yes, you want that honesty and candor in the extremely private communications between an ambassador and its government but if that private communication does go public, keeping the ambassador in place with such comments known is basically spitting the host country in the face. It's not good relations. You have to recall the amabassador and replace them with someone else at a minimum. And this is even more true with petty and infantile leaders like Trump.

What Hazir and Fuzzy said.

I agree with every word Darroch wrote, but that doesn't matter one jot once it became public and Trump made him persona non grata. Darroch literally was just doing his job, but also literally could no longer do his job.

The point isn't that the guy ended up having to resign, but that Johnson failed to support him. Corbyn and May were falling over themselves to praise and support Darroch in parliament, and there's a good reason for that.

Darroch resigning isn't surprising. What's surprising—or perhaps not—is the way Johnson threw him under the bus. He could—and should—have refused to go along with the leaker's agenda, dodging questions about Darroch's future job prospects, instead keeping the spotlight on the extremely worrying precedent set by this targeted attack and on Darroch's long history of faithful service to the UK. You'll note, btw, that the US's ambassadors don't easily get fired over offensive conduct, and neither do Russia's. The UK's civil servants saw Johnson demonstrating extremely poor leadership, as many current and esp. former civil servants have stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The point isn't that the guy ended up having to resign, but that Johnson failed to support him. Corbyn and May were falling over themselves to praise and support Darroch in parliament, and there's a good reason for that.

---

They can both virtue signal without having to have a working relations with POTUS for the next couple of years?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...r-kim-darroch/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

They can both virtue signal without having to have a working relations with POTUS for the next couple of years?

---

He will also have to have a working relationship with the civil service over the next two years, and he's just vice signaled that he'll will in no sense have their back and will, in fact, push them in front of a bus the second it suits him. Guess we know where his loyalties lie now.

Quote:

---

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...r-kim-darroch/

---

Every right wing columnist after someone like Trump or Johnson does something stupid and or reprehensible:

Twitter Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

He will also have to have a working relationship with the civil service over the next two years, and he's just vice signaled that he'll will in no sense have their back and will, in fact, push them in front of a bus the second it suits him. Guess we know where his loyalties lie now.

---

Good. The civil service is there to serve the country not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Every right wing columnist after someone like Trump or Johnson does something stupid and or reprehensible:

Twitter Link

---

The former Labour MP for Glasgow South for 14 years and 2011 candidate to be leader of the Scottish Labour Party is a right-wing columnist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The point isn't that the guy ended up having to resign, but that Johnson failed to support him. Corbyn and May were falling over themselves to praise and support Darroch in parliament, and there's a good reason for that.

---

Supporting the fall guy defies having a fall guy to begin with. Don't blame Johnson for not doing what you couldn't expect from him. The only people to blame are the ones who leaked the memo's. If possible they should be prosecuted for leaking.

And FYI it made me feel a bit dirty that you forced me to defend Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Good. The civil service is there to serve the country not the other way around.

---

I realize this goes against everything you believe in as a Brexiter and Tory, but they actually do that best when they're able to tell the truth.

Quote:

---

The former Labour MP for Glasgow South for 14 years and 2011 candidate to be leader of the Scottish Labour Party is a right-wing columnist?

---

Blairite, Leaver, thinks the current Labour party is run by hard-left loonies, makes ends meet by writing puff pieces to cover for Bo-Jos fuck ups in the Daily Telegraph - sure, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Supporting the fall guy defies having a fall guy to begin with. Don't blame Johnson for not doing what you couldn't expect from him. The only people to blame are the ones who leaked the memo's. If possible they should be prosecuted for leaking.

And FYI it made me feel a bit dirty that you forced me to defend Johnson.

---

So, how many US diplomats had to resign after saying unflattering things about host countries or organisations which were revealed in the US Wiki-leaks cables?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, how many US diplomats had to resign after saying unflattering things about host countries or organisations which were revealed in the US Wiki-leaks cables?

---

How about this from a former British diplomat fired by the FCO and attacked by Darroch after revealing his host country was involved in CIA Torture?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...e-explanation/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...arroch-affair/

And if you try and shoot the messenger with this one suggesting that Craig Murray is a right-wing columnist I will suggest that's about as plausible as suggesting that Hazir is a Eurosceptic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I realize this goes against everything you believe in as a Brexiter and Tory, but they actually do that best when they're able to tell the truth.



Blairite, Leaver, thinks the current Labour party is run by hard-left loonies, makes ends meet by writing puff pieces to cover for Bo-Jos fuck ups in the Daily Telegraph - sure, why not?

---

Wait a second, forget "Blairite" now apparently being "right-wing" . . . you don't think the Labour Party is run by hard-left loonies?

I thought you were a Lib Dem? I thought you would recognise Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell as hard-left loonies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, how many US diplomats had to resign after saying unflattering things about host countries or organisations which were revealed in the US Wiki-leaks cables?

---

Is it something in the water that makes you Brits forget that international relations are first and foremost about power?

If I were you I would focus on the fact that you have people in your government committing high treason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

How about this from a former British diplomat fired by the FCO and attacked by Darroch after revealing his host country was involved in CIA Torture?

---

The guy was making an absolute nuisance of himself, hardly surprising they booted him. Don't get me wrong, he absolutely did the right thing given the bullshit the US and UK govs were up to back then, but the circumstances are totally different.

[QUOTE=RandBlade;208059]Wait a second, forget "Blairite" now apparently being "right-wing" . . . you don't think the Labour Party is run by hard-left loonies?

I'm sorry to break this to you, but Jeremy Corbyn is not "hard left".

Quote:

---

I thought you were a Lib Dem? I thought you would recognise Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell as hard-left loonies?

---

Since when does being a Lib Dem mean you have to think current Labour are 'hard left loonies'?

Tory FUD won't work here. In fact, remember when the entire Tory strategy at the last election was to harp on and on about what a hard-left loonie Corbyn was and then Labour gained seats, and Tories nearly lost their majority, because basically nobody who wasn't already a Tory voter actually believed that characterization or saw it as a problem? Apparently it doesn't work anywhere else, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Is it something in the water that makes you Brits forget that international relations are first and foremost about power?

---

That's just one very good reason why it'a a bad idea to demonstrate that you are easily pushed around, and that a sufficiently obnoxious temper tantrum can get a British diplomat replaced. Doubly so when you're dealing with someone with the mentality of Donald Trump.

Quote:

---

If I were you I would focus on the fact that you have people in your government committing high treason.

---

I can't deal with all the treason in the British government right now - work is very busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The guy was making an absolute nuisance of himself, hardly surprising they booted him. Don't get me wrong, he absolutely did the right thing given the bullshit the US and UK govs were up to back then, but the circumstances are totally different.

---

Same as Darroch. Yes he did the right thing but he also made a nuisance of himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Wait a second, forget "Blairite" now apparently being "right-wing" . . . you don't think the Labour Party is run by hard-left loonies?

---

I'm sorry to break this to you, but Jeremy Corbyn is not "hard left".

Since when does being a Lib Dem mean you have to think current Labour are 'hard left loonies'?

Tory FUD won't work here. In fact, remember when the entire Tory strategy at the last election was to harp on and on about what a hard-left loonie Corbyn was and then Labour gained seats, and Tories nearly lost their majority, because basically nobody who wasn't already a Tory voter actually believed that characterization or saw it as a problem? Apparently it doesn't work anywhere else, either.

---

It isn't a characterisation he literally is hard left. He has spent thirty years self identifying as hard left on the backbenches while writing regularly for the Morning Star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Same as Darroch. Yes he did the right thing but he also made a nuisance of himself.

---

It's literally not the same. Murray made a speech attacking the host country, challenged foreign office policy constantly and gave interviews to the media. All Darroch did was state, in a private communication, what anyone who takes a passing interesting in the news would be able to tell you.

Quote:

---

It isn't a characterisation he literally is hard left.

---

If you think Corbyn's hard left then you've lead a very sheltered life, politically speaking.

Quote:

---

writing regularly for the Morning Star.

---

So, does writing for a news paper with certain views make mean you share those views or doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

That's just one very good reason why it'a a bad idea to demonstrate that you are easily pushed around, and that a sufficiently obnoxious temper tantrum can get a British diplomat replaced. Doubly so when you're dealing with someone with the mentality of Donald Trump.



I can't deal with all the treason in the British government right now - work is very busy.

---

Darroch should have fallen on his own sword the moment those memo's came out. That maybe would have avoided the humiltion. But since he didn't it all makes your government look bad in the eyes of the special partner government. Who actually can push you around. And he still can't stay.

He could have stayed in Russia. Because Russia isn't your super special buddy. Yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

It's literally not the same. Murray made a speech attacking the host country, challenged foreign office policy constantly and gave interviews to the media. All Darroch did was state, in a private communication, what anyone who takes a passing interesting in the news would be able to tell you.

---

Murray's speech attacking the host country was cleared by the FCO before it was made. His interviews to the media came after proceedings against him had already begun.

Quote:

---

If you think Corbyn's hard left then you've lead a very sheltered life, politically speaking.

---

Not really, if you don't regard people who self-identify as "Marxists", or people who call for the "overthrow of capitalism" as hard left then I'm wondering who you do consider to be that?

Quote:

---

So, does writing for a news paper with certain views make mean you share those views or doesn't it?

---

Wait a moment, you were just calling a former Labour MP who writes for a mainstream centre-right newspaper "right wing" but you think someone who writes regularly for an actual Communist newspaper isn't actually involved with the left?

There are right-wing people who write for the Guardian and left-wing people who write for the Telegraph. The Morning Star is a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Murray's speech attacking the host country was cleared by the FCO before it was made. His interviews to the media came after proceedings against him had already begun.

---

What were the proceedings over, again?

Quote:

---

Not really, if you don't regard people who self-identify as "Marxists", or people who call for the "overthrow of capitalism" as hard left then I'm wondering who you do consider to be that?

---

I would generally use that label for the Stalinist/Maoist apologists flavour of communist (so called "tankies") and the more violent sects of anarchist as hard-left. Simply think that capitalism is bad and wanting to change it is not enough, for the same reason I would not class libertarians as 'far right' just because they want a radical change in the current social order.

Quote:

---

Wait a moment, you were just calling a former Labour MP who writes for a mainstream centre-right newspaper "right wing" but you think someone who writes regularly for an actual Communist newspaper isn't actually involved with the left?

---

No... I said he wasn't a 'hard leftist'.

Libertarians are pretty hard right. Not far right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Libertarians are pretty hard right. Not far right.

---

What now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

What now?

---

Far right is a term that has been adopted to mean Nazis, racists, fascists etc and not people who are simply right wing. Couldn't be more different to Libertarians.

Libertarians are however pretty hard right, not soft centre right. They're firm in what they believe and taking a stand in their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Far right is a term that has been adopted to mean Nazis, racists, fascists etc and not people who are simply right wing. Couldn't be more different to Libertarians.

Libertarians are however pretty hard right, not soft centre right. They're firm in what they believe and taking a stand in their beliefs.

---

As has been discussed here to death, the right and left paradigm isn't particularly useful for describing libertarian principles. Classifying them as hard right doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

As has been discussed here to death, the right and left paradigm isn't particularly useful for describing libertarian principles. Classifying them as hard right doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

---

What he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

What he said.

---

Because it requires a government to have left or right. No government, no problem, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

As has been discussed here to death, the right and left paradigm isn't particularly useful for describing libertarian principles. Classifying them as hard right doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

---

I like the political compass version of left and right for economics, libertarianism v authoritarianism for social issues. And yes, libertarianism is a very hard liberal form of right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I like the political compass version of left and right for economics, libertarianism v authoritarianism for social issues. And yes, libertarianism is a very hard liberal form of right.

---

Even that doesn't make sense because you can have social libertarians who are fiscally to the left - see anarcho-communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Libertarians are pretty hard right. Not far right.

---

So hard right is the same thing as far right. If you google it, 'far right' comes up. In fact, 'hard right' isn't really a thing.

The reason I would not call libertarians hard right is not because that's the wrong place to put them on some abstract political spectrum, but because the term 'far right' has certain connotations that, whatever their flaws, simply do not apply to libertarians, so using the word conveys the wrong impression. Do libertarians sit around thinking about how they can best exterminate race enemies? No. So I'm not going to call them far right, because that's what someone will think I mean if I use that phrase to describe them.

Terms like "far right", "hard left" etc have value in that they are useful short hand in that they tell you something about what someone's politics are, but trying to put them into some abstract symmetrical framework is a mugs game, people's political views are far too complex to be put into a framework like that, or at least two complex to go into one with just two axis.

Libertarianism is just the goth approach to various other mainstream ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Even that doesn't make sense because you can have social libertarians who are fiscally to the left - see anarcho-communists.

---

I would not call anarcho-communists libertarians because communism is very illiberal economically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I would not call anarcho-communists libertarians because communism is very illiberal economically.

---

I appreciate that. I also hope you appreciate that Randblade does not hold a sole monopoly on the English language and how it is used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Libertarianism is just the goth approach to various other mainstream ideologies.

---

Sigh...