The British ambassador to the USA resigned today following leaked internal UK Government memos regarding Trump's "dysfunctional " and "chaotic" White House administration where he assesses it is practically impossible to get a clear statement of foreign policy and where staffers are "combative" and "unfocused "
I wonder who leaked such a memo on th British side since this doesn't seem to be advantageous to the British government nor any members of parliament who are currently seeking to replace the Conservative PM (May) who resigned last month.
I don't think much of what was in the memo comes as a surprise to most so why even leak it? Weird

steveinbc wrote:

I don't think much of what was in the memo comes as a surprise to most so why even leak it? Weird

I realize I might be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" by saying this, but it would come as no surprise to me to learn it was Russian campaign that leaked the memo. It plays right into their tactics of trying to divide Western countries and sow distrust and discord between allies.

steveinbc wrote:

The British ambassador to the USA resigned today following leaked internal UK Government memos regarding Trump's "dysfunctional " and "chaotic" White House administration where he assesses it is practically impossible to get a clear statement of foreign policy and where staffers are "combative" and "unfocused "
I wonder who leaked such a memo on th British side since this doesn't seem to be advantageous to the British government nor any members of parliament who are currently seeking to replace the Conservative PM (May) who resigned last month.
I don't think much of what was in the memo comes as a surprise to most so why even leak it? Weird

What about someone who covets the ambassadorship?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

steveinbc wrote:

The British ambassador to the USA resigned today following leaked internal UK Government memos regarding Trump's "dysfunctional " and "chaotic" White House administration where he assesses it is practically impossible to get a clear statement of foreign policy and where staffers are "combative" and "unfocused "
I wonder who leaked such a memo on th British side since this doesn't seem to be advantageous to the British government nor any members of parliament who are currently seeking to replace the Conservative PM (May) who resigned last month.
I don't think much of what was in the memo comes as a surprise to most so why even leak it? Weird

What about someone who covets the ambassadorship?

It would be unlikely that one particular person who covets an ambassadorship would also have access to secret e-mails from the current ambassador. Unfortunately, these leaks smell more of more serious spywork.

Alfa164. That’s a very interesting viewpoint and one I hadn’t seriously considered. Putin appears to be a big fan of Trump and is likely exposing anyone who doesn’t like him. Regardless of motive, the end result is discord so your theory is plausible.

alfa164 wrote:

steveinbc wrote:

it would come as no surprise to me to learn it was Russian campaign that leaked the memo.

It wouldn't surprise me either.

An alternative line of thinking is that this got leaked from within the administration itself, with the aim of having the ambassador seen replaced by the new PM with someone who's public mission it will be to be Trump's BFF.

Let's not forget the UK is currently in the middle of a Brexit process which is turning out to be a complete disaster!
Rather than having left the EU, enjoying a transition period during which everything stays as it is and meanwhile sign scores of FTAs with all those nations the EU doesn't trade freely with (yet), the UK is still stuck in the EU, unable to figure out on what terms it wants to leave, risk crashing out at the end of October with no transition period whatsoever while the Conservative party tears itself apart over a leadership contest and meanwhile have ZERO FTA's with third countries ready to be signed… it even risks losing access to quite a few important ones like CETA.
In this context, it's not inconceivable that someone from within throught it might be a good idea to facilitate the one PR stunt which could add a silver lining to the very dark clouds gathering over the UK: that of a quick FTA with the US.

Donald Trump has repeatedly offered one (on his well known terms, which basically mean total submission to US economic standards), yet so far the UK has resisted to accept the offer, in part because it is very contentious to be seen to do so in Britain, in part because the diplomatic corps has been holding it back as they see only self-interest in the White House and don't know what to expect nor how to deal with the negotiations.

With BoJo as PM, you can be sure he'll go for the deal anyway (regardless of what's in it) as he'll need something to underpin his story of a successful Global Britain after the likely crash out end of October,so this gives him an a very unique opportunity to show to Trump what a 'good personal friend' he truly is as well as replace the British ambassador to the US with someone much more of the same stye as Trump and BoJo.

Sure, it trashed the international standing of the UK and it turns BoJo into a puppet of Trump, but it is totally in line with the thinkin of both 'leaders': establish personal close relationships, scratch eachother's back in public, endulge in mutual as well as self-flattering and then do 'great' business deals which are helping them both out politically, selling it as a great achievement for their countries, while actually diminishing their international prestige.

The Russians don't need to micro-manage every little issue and every single embarassment themselves: the moment they get totally clueless people like Trump and BoJo in the right places, they will take care of all of that by themselves: useful idiots (*) have been one of the preferred ways to achieve foreign policy goals in the Soviet Union, and the internet has made it much easier to propel them to power: Trump's election campain as well as the Brexit referendum were just 2 fine exemples of that.

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I don't agree with the headline: "UK Ambassador resigns after Trump commentary leaked". It should read: UK Ambassador resigns after a Twitter rant of Trump. A head of state should not react to an Ambassador of another country and certainly not by insulting another head of state, the Ambassador and defacto another country. Actually, Trump, with its rant, just proofed the assessment of the Ambassador right.

But given this president, could the Netherlands reject the US ambassador to the Netherlands? He is a proven fool whom publicly mislead the public about the Netherlands and proven not to answer perfectly good questions from journalists. The UK Ambassador just did his job, remember that, he resigns because he did his job.

sabenapilot wrote:

An alternative line of thinking is that this got leaked from within the administration itself, with the aim of having the ambassador replaced by the new PM with someone who's public mission it will be to be Trump's BFF.

That is my take on things, and Farage has been openly fishing for the job, although the British have a professional Embassy staff. So my guess is some Brexitremist within the UK civil servant whom got access to this leaked it to further the Brexitremist cause.

Dutchy wrote:

I don't agree with the headline: "UK Ambassador resigns after Trump commentary leaked". It should read: UK Ambassador resigns after a Twitter rant of Trump. A head of state should not react to an Ambassador of another country and certainly not by insulting another head of state, the Ambassador and defacto another country. Actually, Trump, with its rant, just proofed the assessment of the Ambassador right.

Correct.
The ambassador did his job: he reported on what he saw and heard from the current US administration and it's President via secured cables to his own government. Nothing shocking at all. All ambassadors do that, not just those to the US, but everywhere in the world: it helps their governments build a clear image of who they are dealing with without having to rely on the press.
As others have said before: there's really nothing shocking in these cables even as they match the image of D. Trump's administration to perfection. I bet the cables from the French, German, Japanese, or in fact any other mission in Washington will likely relay pretty much the same image and in any case, the 'normal' way to react to this leak would be not to comment on it, which is what the British first did… until the twitter-in-chief took to his preferred medium to personally insult the source, his government and even drag its head-of-state into it, ironically thus confirming the assessment of the ambassardor.

Dutchy wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

An alternative line of thinking is that this got leaked from within the administration itself, with the aim of having the ambassador replaced by the new PM with someone who's public mission it will be to be Trump's BFF.

That is my take on things, and Farage has been openly fishing for the job, although the British have a professional Embassy staff. So my guess is some Brexitremist within the UK civil servant whom got access to this leaked it to further the Brexitremist cause.

Indeed, for all the whining about how remain Whitehall is, there's bound to be a significant number of leavers there too who -combined with a pending BoJo premiership- saw the unique chance to leak these cables, betting on exactly the kind of reaction from Trump that we got, to get rid of another obstablce to that illustrious FTA with the USA that is now mythically going to have to make the whole Brexit pain somehow worth it, now that the UK is on the verge of losing free access to not just the EU markets as well as several other all important realm markets like Canada even!
I suppose the idea came to fruition after Trump's state visit to Britain, in which he once again floated the idea of a very quick and great FTA, something which got shot down by many politicians at home (but intrestingly not BoJo) as well as the British diplomatic mission in the US.
Quite a few Brexiteers high-up in government and party who have vested interests in making sure Brexit is a success (for themselves of course, both career-wise as well as well as financially) immediately must have been starting to look at what it takes to facilitate this grace saving outcome and how to remove any obstacles to it
Gives you a nice preview of what kind of a country Brexit Britain will turn out to be too, if indeed confirmed: one where the PM's first reaction to any call from Washinton will be: 'how high you want me to jump, Mr. President?'

BTW_ it hasn't gone unnoticed in Brussels too, btw, because exactly as I've predicted in another topic (on Brexit) some days ago, the submissive attitude the UK has had towards the US for the past 70 years and which it is alread amplifying in preparation of Brexit, it will also have to start to display to the EU, given it's economic importance to the UK, as Urusa von der Leyen has already said that Britain's tone and attitude towards the EU will be determining what kind of a deal it can get!
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/ar ... be-crucial

Meawhile a few headlines of today's Tory newspaper in support of my reading above:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... m-darroch/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... mes-prime/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ue-brexit/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... documents/

So in short: according to BoJo, the whole Brexit turned into a nightmare for the UK and is in in urgent need of being saved.
This can only be done by a submissive FTA with the USA and quickly too!
In order to get that done, D. Trump needs to be pleased as much as possible and the diplomatic corps in Washington needs to be sacrificed and replaced by people hand-picked by BoJo himself to serve the one purpose of getting Trump to save Britain from humiliation….
Glorious future!
ROTFL

sabenapilot wrote:

So in short: according to BoJo, the whole Brexit turned into a nightmare for the UK and is in in urgent need of being saved.
This can only be done by a submissive FTA with the USA and quickly too!
In order to get that done, D. Trump needs to be pleased as much as possible and the diplomatic corps in Washington needs to be sacrificed and replaced by people hand-picked by BoJo himself to serve the one purpose of getting Trump to save Britain from humiliation….
Glorious future!
ROTFL

So in sort, admission of guilt by BoJo?

So the grand plan is: suck up to president Trump and fingers crossed he will give the UK a trade deal, fast. As we all know Trump is very easy when it comes to trade deals, just ask the Chinese, Mexicans and some other countries. In short they are betting on the fool to give them a brilliant trade deal and they give up the most comprehensive trade deal. Sounds perfectly sane and reasonable,

Dutchy wrote:

In short they are betting on the fool to give them a brilliant trade deal and they give up the most comprehensive trade deal. Sounds perfectly sane and reasonable,

Well, in their defense, it's not like it was their grand plan for Brexit back in 2016 at all, it's just that today, it's basically the only way out that they still see available to them now…
Other than rethink (hard)Brexit itself of course, but that is career-ending for so many Tory politicians that it's not an option they will ever consider, nor give country or Parliament a say in ever again, so they need to continue with it no matter what and just try to make the best of it as they go, even if indeed it means betting the whole farm on Trump's leniency towards the UK, all while ruining the UKs international standing and reputation as a beacon of stability and common sense for the sake of it.

Pathetic indeed, but that's what you get when you embark on the biggest geopolitical stategy shift in a century, all without a plan!

sabenapilot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In short they are betting on the fool to give them a brilliant trade deal and they give up the most comprehensive trade deal. Sounds perfectly sane and reasonable,

Well, in their defense, it's not like it was their grand plan for Brexit back in 2016 at all, it's just that today, it's basically the only way out that they still see available to them now… other than rethink of course, but that is career-ending for so many Tory politicians that it's not an option they will ever consider, o they need to continue with it, no matter what and make the best of it, even if indeed it means better the house on Trump, and ruining the UKs standing and reputation for the sake of it.

No, the big plan in 2016 was to be like Norway or Switzerland, that is what Nigel Farage kept blebbing about, that would actually be a position people could agree on. Helps to think back to those days to see how far the Brexiteers are radicalized.

sabenapilot wrote:

Pathetic indeed, but that's what you get when you embark on the biggest geopolitical stategy shift in a century, all without a plan!

And everyone with a little knowledge keeps telling you that it is the most foolish thing a country can do.

The rational thing for America is to do like Canada and just wait till Britain crashes out and is forced to bring the tariffs down to zero so American companies can just export to Britain without a problem and British companies have the highest tariffs to bring products into the US. So knowingly Trump, he will probably make a deal and making the NHS private in process

Meanwhile, even The Sun is now picking up the theory that this is something fabricated by Brexiteers, as there's now an avalange of criticism on BoJo's very telling silence over all of this all throughout politics and the media in Britain: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9481492/b ... criticism/
"One theory for the devastating leak of Sir Kim’s secret ‘diptels’ was to force him out and allow the new PM to put a passionate Brexiteer political appointee in his place"

But the best of all would be if this is indeed confirmed to be happening:
"It has emerged that Theresa May as the current PM may move swiftly to appoint a successor in the prized pos, and so deny Boris the decision."
he official reason being that the posting is too important to leave vacant for another month.

Dutchy wrote:

The rational thing for America is to do like Canada and just wait till Britain crashes out and is forced to bring the tariffs down to zero so American companies can just export to Britain without a problem and British companies have the highest tariffs to bring products into the US. So knowingly Trump, he will probably make a deal and making the NHS private in process

Indeed, if Trump is even just half the smart businessman he claims to be, he's going to sit and wait for the UK to unliaterally blink first..; which is why it has now become a 'rational' thing to do for Britain to try to send the most flattering person to Washington quickly in order to lure the President into a deal which is not the best deal possible for the US at all, before he even notices what a unique opportunity he has missed once again.

We'll soon see how smart Trump truly is: if the cables from the ambassador were even remotely correct, Trump will soon demonstrate this by actually stepping right into the trap of a quick FTA with a bit of flesh on it for the USA in return for extreme flattering and thus put short term self-interest and personal ego before his country's long term economic interests which he can soon maximize beyond anything achievable through a FTA with the UK, regardless how submissive it turns out to be…

Litterally ANYTHING in any sort of a FTA with the US is going to better than no deal with the US at all, for Britain...
Well, at least for the Eton-elites running the country, that is: it's still marginally better than WTO rules (even if it means lowering food standards, ditching consumer protection rights, opening up the NHS, singing up to the US rool book etc) as it's going to give them something to brag about, which is all that matters to them now really, given their string of broken promisses on Brexit.

I'm not convinced an ambassador to the US is very useful right now, or rather, he's very useful, but not to talk to Trump, rather to talk to the adults in the room. So putting a lapdog in the job will serve no purpose.

In France ambassador is a career, nonetheless anyone can get appointed, usually these former politicians or public figures of some kind get not too important ambassadorships, so a Farage type could become an ambassador if the French president wanted it so.

In the US it's very common for ambassadors to have nothing to do with public service or diplomacy...with not so great results.

The ambassador resigned because he was stupid enough to put something like this in writing. If at this point you still don't understand that everything you write down, ever, well eventually come back and bite you in the ass, then you have no business running a lemonade stand, let alone an embassy

With the US government having been the hipocritical and holier-than-thou "criticizer" of world goverments the last 50 years via a bunch of reports they like to publish ( and not once have they ever criticized themselves), Trump refusing to work with this ambassador should spell the death knell for Washington to criticize others. Any country with even a small pair will immediately announce they will no longer work with the local American ambassador, until he or she is replaced for their awful comments, or until Washington retracts whatever critical piece it published about them. It all falls in the greater trend of silencing dissent.

In my line of work, if I send out an email calling a client of mine an idiot I get called in by Compliance and then go have a nice chat with HR, no matter how idiotic they truly are. I know diplomats think of themselves as special people who can get away with literal murder, but perhaps it is time they start learning a lesson or two from the private sector (Oxbridge doesn't teach you all you need to know in life).

Also, it is ridiculous to state that the diplomatic version of being expelled (i.e., stop being invited to all the cool cocktail parties and start having to pay for your own booze) is at all uncommon - it happens all the time. A few years ago Portugal kindly asked the Iraqi foreign ministry to remove their ambassador from Portugal because his two sons best a 15-year old kid almost to death, and got away with it unscathed due to diplomatic immunity. That doesn't mean Iraq is a patio dog to Portugal, just that the are limits to what is considered acceptable behavior.

Pyrex wrote:

In my line of work, if I send out an email calling a client of mine an idiot I get called in by Compliance and then go have a nice chat with HR, no matter how idiotic they truly are. I know diplomats think of themselves as special people who can get away with literal murder, but perhaps it is time they start learning a lesson or two from the private sector (Oxbridge doesn't teach you all you need to know in life).

Also, it is ridiculous to state that the diplomatic version of being expelled (i.e., stop being invited to all the cool cocktail parties and start having to pay for your own booze) is at all uncommon - it happens all the time. A few years ago Portugal kindly asked the Iraqi foreign ministry to remove their ambassador from Portugal because his two sons best a 15-year old kid almost to death, and got away with it unscathed due to diplomatic immunity. That doesn't mean Iraq is a patio dog to Portugal, just that the are limits to what is considered acceptable behavior.

You still don't get what an ambassador is and does for its government. I consider what this ambassador did, all in line of his duties: just asses the situation and send in reports of what is going on and how to deal with it. Yes, it isn't too flattering for the US president, but heck, that is not because what this ambassador said, but all in the nature of this administration.

Diplomats indeed have immunity from local laws, rightfully so, because they should not be held accountable to the local government, just to their his own government. That doesn't mean that they just can break every law which they desire. The receiving government can expel them if they do so desire. Dutch diplomats are required to pay traffic tickets, why? Because the job of a diplomat is to be a bridge between the receiving country and their own government, and you have to act in a way a diplomat is supposed to act and not to upset the receiving country, but that is for the outside world, not within the foreign department itself. The Iraqi case is totally different than this case, don't know why you have brought it up.

Dutchy wrote:

That is my take on things, and Farage has been openly fishing for the job, although the British have a professional Embassy staff. So my guess is some Brexitremist within the UK civil servant whom got access to this leaked it to further the Brexitremist cause.

You have no evidence for that.

Pyrex wrote:

The ambassador resigned because he was stupid enough to put something like this in writing. If at this point you still don't understand that everything you write down, ever, well eventually come back and bite you in the ass, then you have no business running a lemonade stand, let alone an embassy

You honnestly think the US embassy for instance is NOT sending reports to Washington on foreign leaders? On what they like, on what not? On personal matters?
Of course they do: it's part of the job to inform your government on those little and practical things too, like: "President X or PM Y hates to be disturbed before 9AM" or that "he/she loves to be told how good looking he/she is", because it can help in getting things done right with them!
How exactly do you think leaders who've never met before to suddenly feel a personal touch to their interactions?
And with Mr Trump it's not exactly a secret he has quite a long and specific rider, isn't it?
What is wrong is for insiders from an administration to deliberatly leak those reports in order to discredit their source with the rather obvious aim to be able to replace them quickly with somebody else more of their liking, who's profile is to be that of a sycophant only and who's only job it will basically be to make sure D.Trump is brought into a good mood so as to give the UK that by now all important FTA, knowing that NOT signing up to any deal is likely far more advantageous for the US (like the Canadians are betting on).
BoJo is on record for saying 'Trump is the lifeboat of Brexit'...

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is my take on things, and Farage has been openly fishing for the job, although the British have a professional Embassy staff. So my guess is some Brexitremist within the UK civil servant whom got access to this leaked it to further the Brexitremist cause.

You have no evidence for that.

No direct evidence, but I can speculate, can't I.

Anyway, mr. Trump, over two years ago, tweeted that Farage would be a great UK ambassador

Farage himself: told the ambassador should be sacked

Bookies put him at the top for replacing Kim.

Not unreasonable speculation here, now is it. It has been leaked at this moment, just before Johnson is going to be the next PM. But I agree, he would be the absolute worst ambassador for the UK.

I wonder why the embassy didn't deny everything ? Too obviously true to no be real ?

Dutchy wrote:

But given this president, could the Netherlands reject the US ambassador to the Netherlands?

Yes, they can. Furthermore - it’s a normal thing. Ambassador candidates are generally being agreed upon between the nations’ leadership before appointment, but then it’s a serious cause if the host nation refuses to accept the new ambassador’s credentials.

sabenapilot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I don't agree with the headline: "UK Ambassador resigns after Trump commentary leaked". It should read: UK Ambassador resigns after a Twitter rant of Trump. A head of state should not react to an Ambassador of another country and certainly not by insulting another head of state, the Ambassador and defacto another country. Actually, Trump, with its rant, just proofed the assessment of the Ambassador right.

The ambassador did his job: he reported on what he saw and heard from the current US administration and it's President via secured cables to his own government.

The ambassador is a diplomatic: he should have written whatever his thoughts were in a more diplomatic way.

What I would like to read are the Russian Ambassador's analysis sent to Putin.

You can bet that when high powered negotiations are going on industrial PhD level psychologists are involved and advising. Trump is too dumb to take advantage of any of that - to the detriment of the US.

ps - It struck me that should the UK Ambassador during Reagan's years have sent an subsequently leaked uncomplimentary report, Reagan would have asked him to come to the White House for lunch - as they both acted as though nothing had happened.

Pyrex wrote:

In my line of work, if I send out an email calling a client of mine an idiot I get called in by Compliance and then go have a nice chat with HR, no matter how idiotic they truly are. I know diplomats think of themselves as special people who can get away with literal murder, but perhaps it is time they start learning a lesson or two from the private sector (Oxbridge doesn't teach you all you need to know in life).

Also, it is ridiculous to state that the diplomatic version of being expelled (i.e., stop being invited to all the cool cocktail parties and start having to pay for your own booze) is at all uncommon - it happens all the time. A few years ago Portugal kindly asked the Iraqi foreign ministry to remove their ambassador from Portugal because his two sons best a 15-year old kid almost to death, and got away with it unscathed due to diplomatic immunity. That doesn't mean Iraq is a patio dog to Portugal, just that the are limits to what is considered acceptable behavior.

These reports weren't sent over hotmail or gmail. They were sent over secure means. Every country invests in those secure means to facilitate this type of unfiltered, candid reporting. Ambassadors the world over - including each and every American one - provide similarly candid reports to their government. In writing. The only difference here is that while every US President (and Presidential candidate) would have unconditionally backed a US Ambassador in a similar situation, at least one leadership candidate in the UK left him out to dry.

Also, at risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the US President is not the UK Ambassador's "client". The UK govt - ministers and all - are his client. The UK Ambassador doesn't report to or provide services to US Presidents.

Finally, the diplomatic version of being expelled is called Persona Non Grata. It's what the Russians and Americans do to each other all the time. It has nothing to do with cocktail parties. It's not a "polite request" to remove someone either. It allows countries to physically kick foreign diplomats out.

Don't know about Oxbridge, but the foreign service, with its information-gathering remit, isn't really comparable to some random private sector company peddling easily substitutable widgets and services.

Y'know, for someone calling on others to "learn" more about life, you should consider learning more about what you're commenting on. This is all pretty basic stuff for anyone who's ever read a newspaper.

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

Jetty wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I don't agree with the headline: "UK Ambassador resigns after Trump commentary leaked". It should read: UK Ambassador resigns after a Twitter rant of Trump. A head of state should not react to an Ambassador of another country and certainly not by insulting another head of state, the Ambassador and defacto another country. Actually, Trump, with its rant, just proofed the assessment of the Ambassador right.

The ambassador did his job: he reported on what he saw and heard from the current US administration and it's President via secured cables to his own government.

The ambassador is a diplomatic: he should have written whatever his thoughts were in a more diplomatic way.

That assumes that there is a more diplomatic way of writing what he wrote without affecting the accuracy of the message. I don't think it's as easy as you think, but feel free to prove me wrong by rephrasing what he wrote in a more diplomatic way without detracting from its accuracy.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is my take on things, and Farage has been openly fishing for the job, although the British have a professional Embassy staff. So my guess is some Brexitremist within the UK civil servant whom got access to this leaked it to further the Brexitremist cause.

You have no evidence for that.

They've launched an inquiry, so we will find out soon enough. That said, the circumstances are worth considering. Its interesting that this was leaked to Isabell Oakeshott - a rabid Brexiteer who hates civil servants and the "establishment"/"elite" etc.

She also routinely drones on about the "national interest". Which suggests that she was either too daft to realize how this story could have a negative impact on the UK's national interest, or she knew exactly what damage it would do, but assessed that it would help advance her own anti-civil service/Brexit agenda.

I don't think she's as smart as she thinks she is, but I don't think she's daft either.

Pyrex wrote:

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

The UK system is meritocratic, so Ambassadors have to earn their way to that rank. By definition, that makes them better trained for and suited to their job than others, including the folk they were hired alongside.

FWIW, I think you'll find that most of us also defer to doctors on health related matters, and pilots on flight safety issues. Well, at least HR and compliance staff when writing critical emails about clients.

Or is this one of those whinges about "public service"/ "government"/ "establishment"/ "elite"/ (insert communist revolutionary buzzword) where one doesn't actually know anything about what one is complaining about, but nonetheless participates in it because it's all the rage?

I personally find anti-vaccers frightening, but I suppose some out there applaud their refusal to "defer" to experts.

ElPistolero wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

The UK system is meritocratic, so Ambassadors have to earn their way to that rank. By definition, that makes them better trained for and suited to their job than others, including the folk they were hired alongside.

FWIW, I think you'll find that most of us also defer to doctors on health related matters, and pilots on flight safety issues. Well, at least HR and compliance staff when writing critical emails about clients.

Or is this one of those whinges about "public service"/ "government"/ "establishment"/ "elite"/ (insert communist revolutionary buzzword) where one doesn't actually know anything about what one is complaining about, but nonetheless participates in it because it's all the rage?

I personally find anti-vaccers frightening, but I suppose some out there applaud their refusal to "defer" to experts.

According to you, anyone working for the private sector is "randomly peddling easily substitutible widgets and services", so I very much doubt you would defer to any expert not employed by a government organization.

Pyrex wrote:

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

Several (UK) politicians are on record that Yes minister comes scarily close to what really happens behind closed doors. It's well known that the makers of YM/YPM had regular contact with high ranking officials to get subject material. Obviously YM exaggerated for comedic effect, but still.

ElPistolero wrote:

They've launched an inquiry, so we will find out soon enough. That said, the circumstances are worth considering. Its interesting that this was leaked to Isabell Oakeshott - a rabid Brexiteer who hates civil servants and the "establishment"/"elite" etc.

She also routinely drones on about the "national interest". Which suggests that she was either too daft to realize how this story could have a negative impact on the UK's national interest, or she knew exactly what damage it would do, but assessed that it would help advance her own anti-civil service/Brexit agenda.

I don't think she's as smart as she thinks she is, but I don't think she's daft either.

Certainly, the circumstances are worthy of consideration and investigation. However, after the highly dubious investigation which resulted in Gavin Williamson's dismissal as Defence Secretary, I have reservations about this one. The undefined "compelling evidence" and the fact the police didn't open in an investigation is just a little bit fishy.

petertenthije wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

Several (UK) politicians are on record that Yes minister comes scarily close to what really happens behind closed doors. It's well known that the makers of YM/YPM had regular contact with high ranking officials to get subject material. Obviously YM exaggerated for comedic effect, but still.

So did House of Cards at times.

KLDC10 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Man, the deference to our betters in "public service" is frightening. It is almost like I was just air-dropped into an episode of "Yes, Minister."

Several (UK) politicians are on record that Yes minister comes scarily close to what really happens behind closed doors. It's well known that the makers of YM/YPM had regular contact with high ranking officials to get subject material. Obviously YM exaggerated for comedic effect, but still.

So did House of Cards at times.

English or American version?

Dutchy wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Several (UK) politicians are on record that Yes minister comes scarily close to what really happens behind closed doors. It's well known that the makers of YM/YPM had regular contact with high ranking officials to get subject material. Obviously YM exaggerated for comedic effect, but still.

So did House of Cards at times.

English or American version?

English version. It was written by a man who is now a Conservative Lord and worked in the party for years. The American version is somewhat more fanciful.

Pyrex wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

According to you, anyone working for the private sector is "randomly peddling easily substitutible widgets and services", so I very much doubt you would defer to any expert not employed by a government organization.

Touched a raw nerve, did I? That statement was merely meant to highlight the fact that the foreign service (indeed government writ large) is a different type of beast. It has access to more resources and information/intelligence than anything in the private sector ever will, and, for better or worse, a complete monopoly on what it does.

That aside, I dont think anyone in their right mind would defer to you or your "private sector" colleagues on matters of foreign policy and diplomacy, anymore than I would expect you to defer to a diplomat on whatever it is you do within your company. Is that really controversial?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're the one who claimed that career diplomats can learn lessons from you and your colleagues in your company. I don't think that's the case, mostly because your earlier posts betray a lack of knowledge about basic aspects of diplomacy and the foreign service.

The whole thing stinks. Part of an Ambassador's job is to write detailed and secure information about the country he is in, and the leaders of said country. Also what nobody has said yet, is that what Sir Darroch said is entirely correct on what we know of Trump and the white house.

Whoever leaked it should be facing some serious punishment. No suprise at all that it was broken by Oakeshott, best buddies with Farage, Richard Tice and Aaron Banks. Farage has already come out and said whoever replaces him should be Pro Brexit, because 'Sir Darroch has been a staunch supporter of Brussels all his career'. Farage also today has said anyone in the Civil Service who doesn't support Brexit should change their views or be removed.

With everything we know about the Referendum, Farage and palls and now this, it's all one massive attempt to subvert democracy and instill their anti EU, Pro US agenda. It has to be stopped.