I have spent this morning reading Adam Tolley KC’s report into the complaints about Dominic Raab’s behaviour. Of its 48 pages, the first half is devoted to the process and dealing with multiple criticisms of his methods from Dominic Raab. It’s always interesting that those accused of bullying behaviours often spend a lot of time picking holes in the investigations against them that could arguably have been spent reflecting on their own behaviour and its impact on others.

Tolley’s conclusions are being spun as though Raab has not been found to have done much wrong and that he had to deal with these civil servants who were not up for doing his bidding.  Raab makes much of the conclusion that he didn’t swear at people or throw anything at them as though overt aggression is the only way to intimidate people.

In addition to the two findings of fact that led to Raab’s resignation, Tolley criticises his Raab’s “black and white” approach:

The DPM tends to take a clear view of an issue, whatever it may comprise. This applies across the range of matters with which he deals, from policy decisions to the presentational format of papers. In the context of the investigation, this approach manifested itself in what I considered to be a somewhat absolutist approach in his response to certain points, such as whether a particular conversation had occurred, either at all or in a certain way. His responses were frequently put in ‘black or white’ terms, with no room for nuance even where nuance might reasonably be expected. I did not find this approach persuasive.

Tolley also makes the very valid point that even though Raab does not appear to have held grudges against individuals, it was understandable that they didn’t see it quite that way:

The DPM tends to ‘wipe the slate clean’ from one occasion to the next; he will neither expect to offer criticism nor necessarily offer it. What is, however, also apparent is that some officials, not used to the DPM’s approach, may reasonably anticipate that one occasion of criticism from the DPM will necessarily lead to another. The anticipation of criticism may well be
inhibiting to good performance.

The report paints a picture of someone with insufficient emotional intelligence or self awareness to be trusted with leading a department and enacting any transformational change.

Tolley goes out of his way to commend the civil servants’ sincerity and hard work.

I find that the complainants were in every case acting in good faith in raising concerns which they genuinely held. In some cases, their experience involved a significant adverse impact on their health. While I have not been able to reach any findings on whether such effects were in fact caused by the DPM’s conduct, I recognise and accept that the impacts communicated to me had genuinely been experienced.

And far from being the “snowflakes” that some would suggest, they are well aware of the high pressure environment and high quality of work expected.

There was a general acceptance of the propositions that Ministers are entitled to have high standards and to make constructive criticism of work. It was also accepted that it is the role of the Civil Service to adapt to Ministers’ working preferences and in each of the relevant departments, that is what individuals strove to achieve.

For me the Tolley Report sets out multiple instances of poor behaviour which should never be seen in the workplace. It is much more critical of Raab than he and his supporters are making out.

I also want to give an honourable mention to some other good analysis.

Our Mark Valladares sets out how the sort of behaviour set out in Tolley’s report is a bad thing for the quality of Government:

If you’re being criticised for doing your job as an advisor, you may stop offering information that your minister isn’t going to like, or soft-pedal that information so that it might not be seen to carry as much weight. That leads to unbalanced information in the hands of a decision maker and thus the risk of error in policy making. And given that all decisions in government have consequences, it might reasonably be concluded that the consequences of decisions made without all the facts are likely to be worse for all concerned.

It has been suggested that politicising the upper tiers of the Civil Service, in a similar manner to the way things are in the United States, would engender a more responsive bureaucracy. I suspect that, if you allow Ministers to appoint people who share the same beliefs, and who are entirely beholden to the Minister, the prospects of receiving independent advice become much lower, and you create a chasm between those who advise and those who deliver what is decided.

Marina Hyde is gentler than I expected in her analysis in the Guardian.

Even so, I love these little hardman political incantations the guys think will be key to their political success, when 99 times out of 100 they’d do so much better just sticking with that old faithful: “Remember not to be a massive arse.”

Still, it’s been good to hear about workplace snowflakes again from a bunch of people convinced they got their four-bedroom properties, defined pension benefits and free university education by “being tough” and “not buying coffee”. Did you manage to catch stalwart Raab defender David Davis tipping all over the civil service, specifically in terms of millennials’ “lower expectation of work”? You may remember David from Brexit, where the sometime Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) secretary was frequently photographed grinning above a notes-free section of boardroom table , while the EU representatives opposite – who would go on to best him in the negotiations – peered wryly over their binders. Dominic Cummings once described Davis as “lazy as a toad” , while the former permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office observed that David “could hardly be bothered to go to Brussels”.

Today, Ed Davey has written to Rishi Sunak to ask for Raab to have the Conservative whip removed:

Now that bullying allegations against Dominic Raab have been upheld, it is clear that he is simply not fit to represent his constituents in Parliament.

If Raab refuses to stand down as an MP, Rishi Sunak surely has no choice but to withdraw the Conservative whip.

Allowing Raab to stay sends a message that this inexcusable bullying behaviour is okay for an MP. Sunak must act swiftly if he’s serious about restoring integrity to this sleaze-ridden Conservative government.

Ed is right. But I won’t be holding my breath for Sunak to act. It is depressing to think that the Conservative Party doesn’t seem to understand what good governance and leadership is all about.  It may be a bit better now than the abusive and toxic culture inside Boris Johnson’s 10 Downing Street described by Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell in today’s Sunday Times (£) but it’s far from acceptable. Sunak seems to have spent a great deal of time trying to save his ally Raab. That he tried shows that he just doesn’t get it.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social