21st April 2023
The end, when it came, was not pretty. But then again, endings rarely are.
The resignation letter was extraordinary:
My resignation statement.👇 pic.twitter.com/DLjBfChlFq
— Dominic Raab (@DominicRaab) April 21, 2023
The impression was that the letter was drafted in a rush – the sort of draft one would put together to get something out of one’s system, before composing something more measured.
The letter was accompanied by a 1,100 word piece in the Telegraph which was published eighty-or-so minutes later:
**Exclusive** Dominic Raab has written a 1,100-word piece for @Telegraph outlining his response to the bullying report. https://t.co/CcMTFlheNl
— Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) April 21, 2023
As a published article, it presumably would have been commissioned, edited and lawyered before publication – and so it may have been written before the letter.
But it said much the same.
One remarkable thing was that both the letter and the published article were in the public domain before the actual report – presumably to “frame the narrative” as a political pundit would put it.
And then the report was published:
Tolley report published:https://t.co/64qTxyeC0l
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) April 21, 2023
And it became obvious why Raab was so anxious to “frame the narrative”– as parts of the report were, as a lawyer would put it, “adverse”.
This did not seem to be the usual, coordinated exchange of letters with a prime minister, which one would expect with such a senior resignation.
Instead, it looked a mess.
And one can only wonder about how this mess relates to the unexpected delay from yesterday, which was when the report was expected to be published and the prime minister was expected to make a decision.
What seems plain, however, is that Raab was pressed into a resignation.
If so, there is a certain irony, as it was the threatening of unpleasant outcomes to people who did not comply with his wishes/demands which was the subject matter of some of the complaints.
It therefore appears that Rishi Sunak was more skilful in this cost-benefit power-play than Raab.
In his resignation letter, Raab twice warns of the “dangerous” outcome if he did not get to continue on his way.
But in practice, Sunak by being silent and not “clearing” Raab yesterday placed Raab in an increasingly difficult situation, where it was becoming obvious even to Raab that unless he resigned he would be sacked.
Some may complain that Sunak “dithered” – but another analysis is that this former head boy and city banker patiently out-Raabed the school-cum-office bully.
*
Beginnings, like endings, are also often not pretty. And rarely are they ideal.
But, at last, the Ministry of Justice is free from perhaps the worst Lord Chancellor of modern times.
(Yes, worse even than Christopher Grayling or Elizabeth Truss.)
Over at his substack, Joshua Rozenberg has done an outstanding post on why – in substantial policy and administrative terms – Raab was just so bad.
And on Twitter, the fine former BBC correspondent Danny Shaw has also detailed the many failings in this thread:
Legacy of @DominicRaab
1 Record court backlogs made worse by a barristers’ strike he was partly responsible for through his obstinate refusal to engage. How ironic that it was settled in the short period when @BrandonLewis was in the job
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) April 21, 2023
*
The Ministry of Justice is in an awful state.
The departing minister’s obsession with prioritising symbolic legislation such as the supposed “Bill of Rights” and a “Victims” Bill – which mainly comprises the shallow sort of stuff too often connected to the word “enshrining” – was demonstrative of the lack of proper direction for the ministry.
And it is significant that it was only during the interruption of the Truss premiership, with a new (if temporary) Lord Chancellor that the barristers’ strike was resolved.
Joshua Rozenberg sums up that telling situation perfectly:
“We saw an example of Raab’s indecisiveness in the way handled the strike by criminal defence barristers last summer. Increasing delays — caused initially by government-imposed limits on the number of days that judges could sit — were rapidly becoming much worse.
“Raab seemed like a rabbit frozen in the headlights, unable to decide which way to turn. The problem was solved by Brandon Lewis, who replaced Raab for seven weeks while Liz Truss was prime minister. He simply paid the barristers some more money.
“It was not so much that Raab was ideologically opposed to making a pay offer. On his return to office, he made no attempt to undermine the pay deal reached by Lewis. It’s just that he seemed unable to take a decision.”
*
Now decisions can be made.
Gesture-ridden draft legislation can be abandoned.
And the grunt-work of actually administering our courts and prisons and probation service can take place.
That grunt-work will also not be pretty, and the incoming Lord Chancellor will not get easy claps and cheers that come with attacking “lefty” lawyers and “woke” judges.
But a new start can be made, and all people of good sense should wish the new Lord Chancellor well.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Thank you!!
You confirmed my impression that Raab was ‘fighting’ a losing battle.
Both reading the ‘letter’ (which was totally obnoxious imo) & then the actual report (yes I did!) assured me it was really accurate, then I am rather happy about the outcome.
However, Auntie Beeb decided an interview was warranted (which I thought assumed my ignorance – umm Nope!)
I have you to help me manoeuver all these political barriers – for which I thank you! – as always, David
xxx Carole-Ann
And now Mr. Raab can purchase an atlas and work out where Dover is …
Could Raab be the end of the long, highly unpleasant line of wrongdoers refusing to look themselves in the face, take responsibility for their actions, and acknowledge the validity of adverse criticism? Oh no, we’ve still got Braverman.
The four lead contributors to the book, Britannia Unchained, Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Liz Truss, are now all released, unmuzzled as Gladstone once put it, to the freedom of the backbenches where one hopes they will rediscover the energy, commitment and application to the task which they demanded of others in their book, but which they singularly failed themselves to display in Government.
Chris Skidmore too.
I gather some are referring to Chris Skidmore as the Pete Best of the Britannia Unchained band.
Only, in this case, the opportunities and the associated limelight and notoriety which he has missed out on sharing with the Miserable Four are perhaps not something that Skidmore is likely to fret over and regret to the end of his days.
One of the finest examples of being able to talk the talk but completely unable to walk the walk.
It is a matter of great regret that one of the most important offices of state – responsible for the court system and the rule of law that underpins the working of society as a whole – has (with a few exceptions) been held since 2007 by a succession of ambitious short-term political placemen who (in the main) happen to have studied law at university, and (if we are lucky) might have worked in private practice for a few years. It is not a coincidence that Grayling (history, PR) and Truss (PPE, accounting) performed badly in the role, as neither had any legal background.
Can we ever hope to employ the extensive legal experience of someone like Lord Hailsham, Lord Mackay, even Lord Falconer, giving stability by serving in post for a number of years? Put the Lord Chancellor back in the House of Lords, where they are less susceptible to the shifting political winds in the House of Commons. The efficient running of the courts should not be a political football.
Perhaps even roll the responsibility for the courts in with the Attorney General’s Office to create a proper Ministry of Justice. But more important to separate out again responsibility for prisons and probation, which is a massive distraction, and return them to the Home Office, alongside the police.
An excellent post, particularly in your last two paragraphs.
Only one caveat: to put the Ministry of Justice with the AG is a good idea, provided that the AG is a serious and properly-qualified lawyer. Someone like Braverman does not count.
What surprised me (not really) about his non-apology was the approach that there seemed to be only two areas where Raab was found to be at fault – so he was generally OK.
Really?
It’s rather like a mass murderer being found not guilty of a couple of murders and wanting to be left off the rest.
Maybe not exactly the same – but definitely a form of misdirection (although Raab is no magician).
From a personal point of view, I thought the fact that he seemed to think that inadvertent bullying was OK was most worrying.
Somebody who understands that they are bullying can change their ways; somebody who doesn’t understand that will find it difficult.
Is he psychotic, or was he untrained and ignorant about how to lead and manage people, or both? One of the key roles of Permanent Secretaries is to help Ministers get the best from their Departments, but too often politicians refuse their assistance.
Dominic Raab is my MP. I live in Walton-On-Thames. He is more or less guaranteed to lose his seat in the next election. You can smell it. The last one was very close. He has made himself ever more unpopular since. Local government Tories have defected mainly because of him.
I can’t decide whether he’s a worse MP or minister. There’s just nothing I can find to recommend him. He’s accomplished nothing. Literally. None of his initiative have taken root.
Like Truss as PM, he’s turned out to be worse than useless. When I read about how he’d been found to have inadmissibly interfered with justice (the Justice Secretary!), I then realised that he’s an even worse Lord Chancellor and all around minister than Chris Grayling, which is saying a lot.
Raab claims that he’s tough on the people who work for him because he demands performance. His own performance is lifeless. He is an utterly incapable manager and administrator. This is perhaps why his bullying was so intolerable yet unsurprising. Bullying is really the only tool available to those with power over others who lack the soft skill of persuasion.
The Dominic word is in the news. I wondered about nominative determinism. There is an interesting article in The Critic (14 April 2020) by Dominic Green – worth a look. Dominic is a very 1970s name….
I have met a few Dominics in my career and my impression has been mixed. I wonder if ambitious parents give the name Dominic as a sort of booster charge to their spawn. Hoping they will become a bit – dominating – and rich. Pre planned nominative determinism.
But what if the deal does not quite come off. As so often kids don’t turn out quite the way parents plan. I fear that is what has happened to poor old DR. The rocket booster misfired long ago and now he is tumbling back into the ocean. We shall see if there is anything left after the crash.
Be careful what you wish for.
Oh Dear. Where David had written “The impression was that the letter was drafted in a rush – the sort of draft one would put together to get something out of one’s system, before composing something more measured.”. I first read ‘composting’ which I though was quite appropriate in the circumstances!
And now Raab’s fury has led to some in the UK aping the US by twisting the furore away from the facts and into the parallel universe of the Them-vs-Us-bish-bash-bosh narrative, as see this from the front page of the Sunday Express: “… allies of the Home Secretary have warned that ‘activist’ civil servants are ‘out to get her’ and Tory MPs fear officials who ‘drove the Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab from office now have the Home Secretary in their sights'”. So reality no longer exists but, as per Humpty Dumpty, is anything some thug says it is.