So there’s not many BME senior civil servants

They do seem to be missing an important point, as my comment there points out:

Cohort effects.

First generation immigrants aren’t going to rise to the top of the civil service. Their children should obviously have an equal chance to do so.

So, when did the composition of the population reach 7% BME? Or even 11%? And a generation after that takes us to what year?

Would we actually expect the upper levels of the civil service, people in their 50s, to reflect the percentage of BME population yet?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. But they are the first questions I would be asking.

Thinking about this a bit more, we’d need upper level management to track BME portion of the population some 50-60 years ago. Does it?

45 thoughts on “So there’s not many BME senior civil servants”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Anyone who wants more BME civil servants should go to America and be forced to deal with the DMV at length.

    The civil service is becoming a sheltered workshop for those without the skills to survive in the real economy. How this is a good thing escapes me. Still, without it, the American Black middle class would hardly exist.

  2. I’ve long held the view that, to be truly representative, the civil service must employ the same proportion of morons as exist within the general population. But they’ve been exceeding this quota for decades.

    How many morons are represented on the boards of FTSE 100 companies? I think we should be told!

  3. The “academics” who did the study are morons. The senior civil service means those in grade 1-5, (now known as Senior Civil Service bands 1 to 3). The salary at these levels runs from 60K upwards.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283334/6178-Job_title__grade_and_salary.pdf

    Back in 1991, the UK had 7.9% minorities according to the Census.

    http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefings/dynamicsofdiversity/how-has-ethnic-diversity-grown-1991-2001-2011.pdf

    Senior civil service roles of this sort probably means from age 40 upwards, so call it 20 years – and allow for the fact that the ethnic minority population would be disproportionately young and that recent immigrants would not be eligible for the civil service (if they were not UK nationals), and the numbers look about right – if not a little high.

  4. @ Chris Miller 0905. As the CBI is firmly in favour of the EU, I would suggest the moron representation is well above the population average.

  5. @ken

    I guess what you’d really want to be tracking, for the really top jobs, is presumably the % of BME people in e.g. the 18-30 age band, 20 or so years ago. I thought that kind of age-segmented demographic data exists. And to see whether that’s discrimination or to do with education, perhaps track against the appropriate graduate cohort’s demographic make-up.

    (A more complicated issue is that the civil service has likely always been a more popular career choice among residents of certain cities, particularly compared to the countryside. That urban aspect might push up the BME proportion you’d expect to see if things were being done “fairly”. I recall Lenny Henry getting criticised for making a similar point about the media – so much of it is based in London and other big cities, that the demographics of its workforce should be expected to reflect that – but he had something of a point.)

  6. The entire treasonous gang that is the Senior Civil Service should be sacked en masse without a penny compensation and their pensions confiscated.

    That would a be a colossal strike for the forces of good and would fuck up so many wrong-doers that there would be enough happy endings for 20 Hollywood blockbusters.

    Bollocks to their ethnic composition.

  7. I know little about the Civil Service (except that which I glean from the Documentary Yes Minister/Prime Minister), still, that’s not going to stop me putting my €0.02 in…

    Given the Upper Echelons are in their 50’s, we’re looking at graduates of 30-35 years ago being recruited for the “fast track” programmes (whether explicitly done, or not). No doubt looking for 1st’s or 2:1’s from “good” universities.

    So to qualify…
    1. getting 1st/2:1 classification (maybe in “Classics” like Sir Humphrey but in reality I’m sure most Degrees from back then would do… no Events Management or Hairdressing courses back then!)
    2. from “good” Uni’s (Redbrick + perhaps a select couple more)
    3. 1980-85

    That would be the size of Cohort I’d be looking at, and apply the percentage from there.

    Like Tim, I have no idea how those numbers look either.

  8. No. It’s disgusting. There should be many more BME’s amongst higher grade civil servants. Proportionally more than their numbers in the wider community.
    Haven’t we been repeatedly told how we’re enriched by the talents these newcomers bring with them? How we benefit from immigration?
    Or is it that those telling us are happy for us to lose our jobs, but not they theirs’?

  9. @Jim &MBE

    The Senior Civil Service is pyramid shaped, so the number of SCS1s (grade 5s) will be far more numerous than the SCS3s (Grade 1s). We therefore will want numbers on BME in the cohorts between 1980 and 1995. The 7.9% number from 1991 will be more heavily represented in the lower tier (grade 5s), while the upper tiers will be more like the 1980s. Since the 1979 census failed to provide reliable ethnicity data, this is a stab in the dark – but probably between 4 and 6%. Which is why in my original post, I said it sounded about right or perhaps a tad high. (One would need to know age distributions of senior civil servants to make a better guess than this – it is possible that Grade 5s will include those in their 30s in which case the numbers could be a tad on the low side).

    Jim, note that the qualifications (2.1 or 1st from a good university) etc are not race blind – and using that to limit the applicant pool could (probably would) bias the pool against BMEs and you cannot use this to distinguish whether the SCS is ethnically representative on an age cohort basis. On the other hand, one should remove those who were not British nationals in the cohort since they would not have been eligible for Civil Service entry.

  10. Ecksy

    The entire treasonous gang that is the Senior Civil Service should be sacked en masse without a penny compensation and their pensions confiscated.

    If this leitmotif or idée fixe of yours were a joke (like TW’s hang ’em all riffs), it would be enjoyable. Unfortunately, it is clear that you mean it, which raises the question of whether you are too thick to understand that your proposal would be over-turned by the courts (if ever implemented) because it would be arbitrary and violate the rule of law.

  11. ” your proposal would be over-turned by the courts (if ever implemented) because it would be arbitrary and violate the rule of law.”

    Change the law. Simples!

    (Retroactive legislation? So what? These are the bastards who’ve given us retroactive legislation. Sweet justice.)

  12. Really, it’s all shite. Some immigrant populations (Jamaicans?) seem pretty low on intellectual talent. Some (Chinese?) would probably rather run businesses than fanny about in the civil service. Et bloody cetera. There’s no sound reason at all to expect the civil service to mimic the population. Still, they doubtless added that there must be a concerted push to reduce the number of black men playing Premier League football, didn’t they? Because isn’t that where their logic leads?

  13. P.S. Why does “Black and minority ethnic” privilege blacks?

    P.P.S. May I assume that ME includes Scots, Welsh, Ulstermen, Jews, Aussies and Kiwis, French, Spanish, Portuguese, ….?

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    The senior civil servants I’ve had the unfortunate experience of dealing with have been appalling and I reckon we’d be no worse off if we filled the posts by lott from the general public, and it would have the benefit of shutting up the SJWs. They were, without exception, indecisive, bad mannered (one was a bully), disorganised and weak.

    Interestingly the mid ranking civil servants have all been very good and I would have been happy to have employed them myself. Thought that might be explained by the fact that 2 of them started out in the private sector.

  15. bis

    Change the law. Simples!

    OK, suppose that, as Ecksy proposes, an anarcho-fascist government passed legislation to annul the employment contracts of thousands of civil servants, cancel their pensions (without compensation) and to exclude them from all redundancy legislation.

    Those affected could seek a judicial review, and the legislation would undoubtedly be declared illegal for numerous reasons. The government could either accept that or not. If not, the government would have abandoned the rule of law, which is the crucial underpinning of democracy, and have become an elective tyranny, for the rule of law is a necessary condition of liberty.

    I’d like to see civil servants not only reduced in number but also have less generous terms and conditions. However, that can only be achieved by legal and constitutional means.

  16. I think you mean well Theo but you have no real idea about the scummy realities of life.

    If we–in this instance we being defined as those who want a life of freedom combined with the best bits of the society we have known–want to win and thus avoid one of the socialist/Islamic dystopias that we are being driven into then we need to do what is needed. Not what can be done within the constraints you find sacrosanct.

    In a battle –and we are in one even it is not acknowledged–you aim to cut your foes head off in one go. Not try to remove it by quarter-inch cuts as allowed by law.

    The law would be modified even to the extent of evoking emergency war powers if needed. Those who are working to destroy us must be sundered. If we don’t fuck them up–they will certainly do that for us. They already are.

    Since most of the measures I advocate would actually increase the freedom of ordinary folk like us I see no ultimate problems in what I propose. Which is to financially and personally ruin an entire crew of dangerous socialistic parasites who work daily put chains on us. Your way–if you actually have any ideas about what we might do to avoid a very unpleasant future–would fail.

    To win you strike and strike hard not call some fucking lawyer and ask a system run by your deadly enemies if they would like to dissolve themselves–please.

  17. All you’re saying, Theo, is the purpose of the law is to enshrine the status quo & that conservatism is the only valid paradigm.
    If one believes the status quo advantages those who brought the legislation in, in the first place, it’s hardly anarchic to want to replace it with legislation favours different interests.

  18. I think that by the time Mr Ecks is our wise and benevolent leader, immediate sacking and instant loss of pension rights will be seen as a soft option for those whom the public feel destroyed the country. They’ll be demanding heads on pikes.

    Sadly, the Ecks regime may arrive sooner than many imagine.

  19. All you’re saying, Theo, is the purpose of the law is to enshrine the status quo…

    Show me where I said or implied that. The purpose of law is not to enshrine the status quo. The rule of law guarantees liberty by enforcing contracts and limiting the use of violence and by ensuring that change is democratic, gradual and itself lawful.

    …& that conservatism is the only valid paradigm.

    If that statement is not meaningless jargon, it is false. The UK could develop democratically into much more classically liberal – even libertarian – society under the rule of law. Revolutionary change, even ‘libertarian revolutionary change’ (whatever that might be!), that abandons the rule of law is fascist, not liberal or libertarian. I imagine that you and dear Ecksy would be the first to squawk if a Corbyn-led government abandoned the rule of law and began to pass legislation expropriating individuals and companies.

    If one believes the status quo advantages those who brought the legislation in, it’s hardly anarchic to want to replace it with legislation [that] favours different interests.

    Many different people of very different political outlooks brought in the legislation we have; so, in so far as any particular piece of legislation advantages those who brought it in, people of very different political outlooks could be (dis)advantaged and in different ways.

    And legislation can be repealed and replaced, if it is done lawfully – eg following the established democratic law-making procedures in the constitution and ensuring that the new legislation does not infringe basic legal rights (such as to a fair trial, contractual rights, property rights…).

  20. Ecksy

    Substitute ‘neo-liberal’ for ‘socialist’ in your post @ 5:07pm, and you will see that what you are proposing is the mirror-image of what Corbyn, Murphy and other more or less revolutionary socialists want to do.

  21. Good and Evil Theo.

    They want to do it cos it would work–in the sense of destroy opposition to them–in the short-term. Because they peddle socialist poison the short-term is all they would have. Since free markets and personal freedom is where I want to go–the future would be very good indeed for almost everybody except the arseholes. Yes that is what Cobog and his gang also say ( Mr E.U. Pig-Fucker too for that matter) but the lessons of the last 150 years show which side has fucked mankind over and which has raised human prosperity and happiness higher than ever before. There is good and there is evil and freedom and markets are on the side of the Angels.

    This is not an original idea to me. Sean Gabb rightly points out in his Culture War book that trying to “reform” the BBC say or stock it with “good chaps” who are anti-leftist could not be done. Exactly the capers you speak of Theo–lawsuits/judicial reviews etc would spring up to frustrate the attempt and drag it out for years–one department at a time. And all that time the engine of propaganda we and they are fighting over will be pumping out anti-us propaganda. However if the BBC is shut down and gone in a week the cunts will be standing on the pavement scratching their heads and wondering where it all went before they can say Jack Robinson. And then as Gabb says –their future will consist of 14 hours a day working at tele-sales of double-glazing in an attempt to pay their mortgages.

    That is how to win. Your way won’t work. Keep on with it if you want your kids/grandkids to kiss red or islamic arse as their way of (what will laughingly be called) life.

  22. “Substitute ‘neo-liberal’ for ‘socialist’ in your post @ 5:07pm, and you will see that what you are proposing is the mirror-image of what Corbyn, Murphy and other more or less revolutionary socialists want to do.”

    Addressed that to the wrong person, Theo.

    Don’t know about MrX, but that’s EXACTLY what I believe in. No alternatives left.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “If this leitmotif or idée fixe of yours were a joke (like TW’s hang ’em all riffs), it would be enjoyable. Unfortunately, it is clear that you mean it, which raises the question of whether you are too thick to understand that your proposal would be over-turned by the courts (if ever implemented) because it would be arbitrary and violate the rule of law.”

    We are in an unfortunate period of time – too late for voting to make any different, too early for shooting the [email protected]

    But we will get there. We will get there.

  24. Ecksy

    I am in favour of freedom and free markets, too. And, with a parliamentary majority in favour, the BBC could be dismantled and sold off in a matter of months. With employment contracts legally terminated, and pensions frozen, there could be no legal challenge. The rule of law does not stop you doing radical things: it only stops you doing radical things illegally.

  25. Bis

    …that’s EXACTLY what I believe in. No alternatives left.

    That’s the nihilistic mindset of the revolutionist who is so estranged from the political institutions he grew up with that he imagines that there is nothing in them worth preserving and everything must be repudiated and destroyed so we can start afresh. That sort of attitude never ends well.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “That’s the nihilistic mindset of the revolutionist who is so estranged from the political institutions he grew up with that he imagines that there is nothing in them worth preserving and everything must be repudiated and destroyed so we can start afresh. That sort of attitude never ends well.”

    Sure. But what if the political institutions I grew up with actually do have nothing worth preserving and everything really should be repudiated and destroyed so we can start afresh?

    What if the problem is not a product of my personality but the objective external failed reality?

  27. Theo

    I and almost everyone I know wants zero Islamic migration to this country and steps to stop subsidising the breeding programs of those already here.

    The only party we have a chance with is UKIP–which still does not dare speak its mind because of PC attacks on free speech– and which got one MP. Its chance of a second MP was removed by an 11th hour landing of a massive Islamic block of postal votes in favour of ZaNu. The link between ZaNu and postal voting fraud is so long standing as to be described as venerable. No action is at all likely to be taken to investigate this pile of shite as ZaNu and BluLab both hate and fear UKIP.

    Please tell me again how we can change the law to create radical change by voting.

  28. “That’s the mindset of the revolutionist who is so estranged from the political institutions he grew up with that he sees that there is nothing in them worth preserving and everything must be repudiated and destroyed so we can start afresh.
    Sticking with the bastards you know because your too scared to think outside the box never ends well.”

    Fixed that for you, Theo..

    Or is it you’ve too much invested in the status quo to want to see a change?
    I haven’t.
    Nor have a lot of people.

  29. SMFS

    But what if the political institutions I grew up with actually do have nothing worth preserving and everything really should be repudiated and destroyed so we can start afresh? What if the problem is not a product of my personality but the objective external failed reality?

    But there is no objective and empirical test that could determine that there’s nothing worth preserving. So it is a matter of judgement. And if you judge such nihilism to be true, then you find yourself sharing that judgement with (for instance) Laurie Penny – a fact that should give you some pause for thought, given that she is as deranged as lefties come.

  30. There you go again, Theo. And does agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn that it’s raining In Holloway Road make one a member of CND & supporter of the IRA?

    That said, I’m somewhat enamoured of the far left. As am of the far right. If one wishes to see the system torn down one wants the barricades manned & the Bastille stormed. Not going to be done by the limp wristed, middle ground, middle classes, is it? Pussies who couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag. We’ll worry about which way the future leads after the revolution. But I would be in favour of stringing up the membership of the Conservative Party. On principal. On the principal they don’t have principals.

  31. Bis:

    …does agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn that it’s raining In Holloway Road make one a member of CND & supporter of the IRA?

    No, of course not. Whether it’s raining in the Holloway Road is an empirical matter. Whether your and Jezbollah’s apocalyptic fantasies are justified by the nihilism you share is a question of judgement.

    Unable to conceive of a world which is ‘good enough’ or ‘as much as we can hope for’, everything for the revolutionist is either dystopia or utopia: there is nothing in between, and nuance is abhorred. If it’s not perfect, exactly the way the revolutionist wants it, it is nothing. Such an attitude is as unhealthy as it is simplistic.

    And there’s the rub: violent revolutionists of the left and the right are mentally ill – ranging from psychopaths coating their violent impulses with a veneer of idealism, or sad embittered losers who blame others for their inadequacies and failures.

    We’ll worry about which way the future leads after the revolution.

    That’s what they all say. Given a choice between what we have and an unspecified utopia, only a fool would be on board. All revolutionists imagine that they will be one of those in charge; and they forget that revolutions devour their own children.

    PS. It’s ‘principles’, not ‘principals’.

  32. Ecksy

    Unless the party implodes, UKIP is probably on the way to replacing all but a rump of the Labour Party. And that would be a very good thing, moving the centre of British or at least English politics firmly to the right. In essence, that is how the right-wing radical change most of us here would like to see will be achieved.

  33. “And there’s the rub: violent revolutionists of the left and the right are mentally ill – ranging from psychopaths coating their violent impulses with a veneer of idealism, or sad embittered losers who blame others for their inadequacies and failures.”

    i’m reminded the Yanks built a pretty good nation on the back of violent revolution.

  34. Bis

    The American revolution was not utopian or nihilistic, unlike the French and Russian versions. The Americans had a clear idea of the polity they wanted to achieve — unlike you, Laurie Penny et al. — and it would more accurate to describe their ‘revolution’ as a rebellion or secession. Moreover, with no democratic representation, their choice to rebel is quite understandable.

  35. “rebellion or secession”
    That’s the stuff.
    And i have no problem whatsoever in sacrificing the Laurie Pennys of this world as cannon fodder, if that’s what it takes.
    That’s what idiots are for.

  36. Bis

    By your own admission, you will follow where the revolution leads. So I’m still pondering whether you are a closet psychopath or an alienated loser…

  37. And you Theo are the same bloke who–a mere few months ago–was dead against UKIP and held BluLab as the last best hope of the nation.( although in fairness you were never keen on Mr E.U. Pigg-Phoocur their dear leader).

    Now–all of a sudden UKIP is our hope for the future. Despite the fix being in as I point out above. You may not be alienated but to call other people losers is a kettle calling the pot black job.

  38. Wouldn’t know, Theo. I’ve always been more of a leader than a follower. Leave that to the sheep. Was that a bleat I heard…..?

  39. Theophrastus said:
    “OK, suppose that, as Ecksy proposes, an anarcho-fascist government passed legislation to annul the employment contracts of thousands of civil servants, cancel their pensions (without compensation) and to exclude them from all redundancy legislation. Those affected could seek a judicial review, and the legislation would undoubtedly be declared illegal for numerous reasons. ”

    Nope. You can only have judicial review of administrative actions (Ministerial decisions, etc.); primary legislation (an Act of Parliament) is immune from it.

    The only ways to challenge primary legislation are the Human Rights Act (which we’d repeal first), EU law (which we’d withdraw from first) and vagueness (which a decent draftsman will make sure there’s no room for).

  40. Conversing with Theo, it’s obvious why a revolution/rebellion’s needed in the first place. This democracy/law stuff, he’s so keen on, is only ever suitable when it suits his purpose.
    Pretty well straight Tory mode-of-operation. And Labour, for that matter.

  41. Richard
    True; but the devil would be in the detail, which the primary legislation would not cover. So plenty of scope for JR, and other legal challenges.

  42. Ecksy
    I think UKIP is a rabble. Before the GE, I saw it as Millipede’s gateway to power. Now that it seems to be a threat to Labour, I am pleased. My views change if the facts change. And most seats in which UKIP challenge Labour don’t have a 25% muslim block vote for Labour. So your argument doesn’t stack up; but then that’s par for the course with you, sadly.

  43. Bis

    “This democracy/law stuff, he’s so keen on, is only ever suitable when it suits his purpose.”

    Oh dear, that’s quite pathetic. You have no evidence to support your feeble ad hominem argument.

  44. Theo,Theo–reason ain’t your bag is it. So you still support BlueLab but ” a rabble” (ah the stench of traditional Tory snobbery–like the pale lavender-accented piss of a formerly aristocratic dosser) is going to save us.

    Your lack of knowledge of the North leads you to your fatuous conclusion that ZaNu does not rely on the Islamic vote to keep it in control of–quite possibly–decisive strategic areas. And of course the fix is still in –to which you have no answer. The fix could be unfixed of course, but the pig-fucking leader of your blu heroes has no intention of doing anything about that even though it would help his own clowns. He couldn’t even sort out the boundaries in the last Parliament. The prospect of helping UKIP as well is certainly too much for the pale piss-swigger.

    A very dangerous lack of action considering Corbog is now a very considerable danger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *