Tweet
When I first saw the headline about the Foreign Office and the Pope I thought at first this was probably a silly internal e-mail or maybe even an April Fool's joke.
Wrong.
One word showed that this was actually a formal document. The Foreign Office statement of regret/anger/embarrassment said it had been "withdrawn". This meant of course that it had been circulated and it was something I had trouble in getting my head round.
This did not seem to be the Foreign Office I have known.
It turned out that the list of ideas for the papal visit ("Benedict" condoms, blessing of a gay marriage etc) had been drawn up by a team "brainstorming" for the visit and was attached to an invitation to a wider meeting.
This was definitely not the Foreign Office I have known.
"You cannot be serious" was my immediate thought. It still is.
The memo was sent with a somewhat unnecessary warning that some suggestions were possibly "far-fetched" (so why send them?) and with a necessary but dangerous warning that it was not for external exposure, often a hint of something spicy to a determined leaker.
According to the recipient of the leak, the Sunday Telegraph, the memo was sent out by a young diplomat, a 23-year-old Oxford graduate, though on the say-so of a more senior official, who has been moved to "other duties". It would be interesting to know the timing of this move. Did it happen only after the leak?
No wise counsel
What does this episode tell us of the modern Foreign Office?
It tells us first that "brainstorming" has taken the place of judgment.
You can just imagine the meeting at which some bright spark proposed drawing up a list of provocative proposals. Everyone of course joined in enthusiastically, congratulating each contributor as they came forward with more and cleverer proposals. ("Open an abortion clinic? Excellent", "Fantastic condom idea. Brilliant.")
But did nobody call for a pause? Was there no wiser counsel? Not even a stray Roman Catholic at the table who might have questioned all this?
Was there no institutional memory in this supposedly international department about the persecution of Catholics in this country (Catholic emancipation did not come until 1829) and a suspicion that this list might not look good in that context?
Obviously not. Nobody stepped forward to say it was all ridiculous. And it got worse. The whole thing was circulated as an attachment to an invitation to a wider planning meeting.
The new Foreign Office
Then you realise another thing about the new Foreign Office. This "brainstorming" approach is part of a revolution which you can see there on any Friday. It is now a "dress-down" day.
Diplomats in jeans and shabby shirts (we Brits cannot do smart casual) come into the reception area to greet some of the best-dressed folk on the planet, often diplomats from small countries trying to look their best in what they, perhaps naively, regard as an august institution.
One other detail on the leaked document caught my eye. This was a chart of people said to be "stakeholders" in the papal visit. The use of "stakeholders" is a sure sign that jargon is at work and that brains are not.
And then you look on the Foreign Office website, which is loaded with blogging and links to Twitter and YouTube and Flickr. The foreign secretary himself has a blog, though it has had to stop for the period of the election campaign and is usually hidden away in an act of annoying modesty.
This is all supposed to project the image of the official-friendly and user-friendly FO.
The message is that King Charles Street is no longer the abode of Carlton Brown of the FO, and Ealing comedy film from 1959 in which Terry Thomas gives work a glancing blow after reading The Times over the marmalade.
No, this is the eco-conscious face of British diplomacy, where our ambassador to Ukraine blogs that he has been helping to pick up litter in a park in Kiev (now spelled Kyiv) as part of Earth Day.
And yet, also on the website, is news about an attack on the British ambassador's convoy in Yemen.
The world remains a serious place. Does the Foreign Office?
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.ukThis article is from the BBC News website. ? British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Wrong.
One word showed that this was actually a formal document. The Foreign Office statement of regret/anger/embarrassment said it had been "withdrawn". This meant of course that it had been circulated and it was something I had trouble in getting my head round. This did not seem to be the Foreign Office I have known.
It turned out that the list of ideas for the papal visit ("Benedict" condoms, blessing of a gay marriage etc) had been drawn up by a team "brainstorming" for the visit and was attached to an invitation to a wider meeting.
This was definitely not the Foreign Office I have known.
"You cannot be serious" was my immediate thought. It still is.
The memo was sent with a somewhat unnecessary warning that some suggestions were possibly "far-fetched" (so why send them?) and with a necessary but dangerous warning that it was not for external exposure, often a hint of something spicy to a determined leaker.
According to the recipient of the leak, the Sunday Telegraph, the memo was sent out by a young diplomat, a 23-year-old Oxford graduate, though on the say-so of a more senior official, who has been moved to "other duties". It would be interesting to know the timing of this move. Did it happen only after the leak?
No wise counsel
What does this episode tell us of the modern Foreign Office?
It tells us first that "brainstorming" has taken the place of judgment.
You can just imagine the meeting at which some bright spark proposed drawing up a list of provocative proposals. Everyone of course joined in enthusiastically, congratulating each contributor as they came forward with more and cleverer proposals. ("Open an abortion clinic? Excellent", "Fantastic condom idea. Brilliant.")
But did nobody call for a pause? Was there no wiser counsel? Not even a stray Roman Catholic at the table who might have questioned all this?
Was there no institutional memory in this supposedly international department about the persecution of Catholics in this country (Catholic emancipation did not come until 1829) and a suspicion that this list might not look good in that context?
Obviously not. Nobody stepped forward to say it was all ridiculous. And it got worse. The whole thing was circulated as an attachment to an invitation to a wider planning meeting.
The new Foreign Office
Then you realise another thing about the new Foreign Office. This "brainstorming" approach is part of a revolution which you can see there on any Friday. It is now a "dress-down" day.
Diplomats in jeans and shabby shirts (we Brits cannot do smart casual) come into the reception area to greet some of the best-dressed folk on the planet, often diplomats from small countries trying to look their best in what they, perhaps naively, regard as an august institution.
One other detail on the leaked document caught my eye. This was a chart of people said to be "stakeholders" in the papal visit. The use of "stakeholders" is a sure sign that jargon is at work and that brains are not.
And then you look on the Foreign Office website, which is loaded with blogging and links to Twitter and YouTube and Flickr. The foreign secretary himself has a blog, though it has had to stop for the period of the election campaign and is usually hidden away in an act of annoying modesty.
This is all supposed to project the image of the official-friendly and user-friendly FO.
The message is that King Charles Street is no longer the abode of Carlton Brown of the FO, and Ealing comedy film from 1959 in which Terry Thomas gives work a glancing blow after reading The Times over the marmalade.
No, this is the eco-conscious face of British diplomacy, where our ambassador to Ukraine blogs that he has been helping to pick up litter in a park in Kiev (now spelled Kyiv) as part of Earth Day.
And yet, also on the website, is news about an attack on the British ambassador's convoy in Yemen.
The world remains a serious place. Does the Foreign Office?
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.ukThis article is from the BBC News website. ? British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.