“Civil servants are supposed to deliver ministerial instructions, not engage in left-wing activism.”
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman has launched a scathing critique of the training programs imposed on civil servants, describing them as a waste of taxpayers’ money and a vehicle for left-wing ideology.
In her remarks, Ms Braverman said she was “appalled” by the mandatory training, which she described as “fundamentally wrong” and riddled with unbalanced narratives about the British Empire, “white privilege,” and “unconscious bias.”
Ms Braverman revealed that during her tenure, she personally undertook the training and found it filled with material authored by left-leaning academics promoting what she described as “damaging ideas.”
She began efforts to overhaul the programs but faced huge resistance, with some accusing her of being “on the wrong side of history.” She departed office before her reforms could be completed, describing this as “a win for the senior civil service.”
The former Conservative Home Secretary said:
“As Home Secretary I was appalled by the mandatory training that Home Office civil servants had to undergo. It was a waste of time, a bad use of taxpayer money and fundamentally wrong.
“I went through it personally to find tonnes of material criticising the British Empire in a wholly unbalanced way, presumptions of ‘white privilege’ and ‘unconscious bias’ and recommended books written by left-wing academics supporting these damaging ideas.
“I embarked on a programme of work to scrap it all. There was a lot of resistance. I was told I would be ‘on the wrong side of history’ for doing so.
“I ploughed on but left office before the work was complete: a win for the senior civil service! This needs to stop. Civil servants are supposed to deliver ministerial instructions, not engage in left-wing activism.”
Accusations of Indoctrination
The controversy has intensified after a recent article in The Telegraph exposed a history course recommended for Home Office staff, claiming it was “infused with critical race theory” and “distorted” views of Britain’s colonial past.
The lessons, developed in the wake of the Windrush scandal, aimed to educate civil servants on Britain’s colonial history and migration patterns. However, the course has been criticised by eminent historians and public figures as biased and inaccurate.
Professors Robert Tombs, David Abulafia, and Lawrence Goldman—affiliated with prestigious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge—wrote to current Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, calling the course “intellectually impoverished” and “full of elementary inaccuracies.”
The historians argued that the training focused solely on portraying the Empire as “exploitative and prejudicial,” neglecting Britain’s anti-slavery efforts and the humanitarian advancements it championed. They also pointed out the omission of key factors that drove Britain’s economic prosperity, such as the Industrial Revolution, coal, iron, and shipbuilding industries.
Professor Tombs described the training as “propaganda of the crudest kind,” adding that it was unprecedented for a government to fund a program that effectively denigrates its own history.
The Windrush Scandal and Its Aftermath
According to the Telegraph, the history course was developed following recommendations from the inquiry into the Windrush scandal, which found elements of “institutional racism” within the Home Office. The inquiry’s findings led to calls for civil servants to receive diversity and inclusion training, part of which included educating them about Britain’s colonial history.
Critics of the course argue that the training goes beyond addressing legitimate concerns and instead promotes an unbalanced narrative that undermines civil servants’ ability to act in the national interest.
Calls for Reform
Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, weighed in, stating:
“Our public servants should be learning about the glories of Britain’s past—how we exported parliamentary democracy and invented the free market system, which has lifted millions out of poverty. How can we expect civil servants to act in the national interest if they’re told that Britain’s history is an unending litany of exploitation and enslavement?”
Braverman echoed these sentiments, emphasising the need to “root out” left-wing activism within the civil service. “Civil servants are supposed to deliver ministerial instructions, not engage in left-wing activism,” she declared.
Looking Ahead
The debate over the Home Office’s training programs highlights the broader cultural and political tensions surrounding Britain’s historical legacy. With historians, politicians, and civil servants divided on how best to approach these issues, the Labour government faces mounting pressure to ensure training programs are accurate, balanced, and free from ideological bias.
As questions linger about the true impact of these programs, one thing is clear: the battle over how Britain teaches and interprets its past is far from over.
Main Photo: Home Office Stakeholder Christmas Reception – 17/12/24. CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
