Welcome to our new, regular round-up of Civil Service World readers' views on the big stories that we've been covering. We're always keen to find out what you're thinking – whether its fulsome praise for our marvellous journalism, or your eagle-eyed spotting of an embarrassing typo. If you weren't already aware, you can comment on any of our articles using the form at the bottom of the page, and you can also drop us a line via e-mail or on Twitter or Facebook.
Don't quota me on that
There was a bit of a diversity theme to our most commented-upon stories this week, as we looked at two distinct plans to try and improve the diversity of the civil service. In a CSW exclusive, shadow Cabinet Office minister Louise Haigh urged government to bring in diversity quotas at permanent secretary level, to try and level the playing field for applicants for Whitehall's top jobs.
The call came in response to a recent perm sec reshuffle that resulted in two fewer female departmental leaders, and Haigh said of quotas: "If we're to achieve change at anything like the speed we need it to then I think it is the only solution".
But that prompted a strong response from a number of our readers. Andy told us he had some sympathy with the plan to boost diversity – but he questioned whether quotas could really have a lasting impact on the culture of the civil service.
"Not a big fan of quotas, and I can't see what they achieve other than potentially undermining the credibility of jobholders," he wrote. "If we start introducing quotas, where do we stop? Do all grades have to be 50/50? Do quotas then get introduced at universities to ensure that there is a 50/50 split across all subjects? I can see what this is trying to achieve but to introduce quotas would be such a ham-fisted approach, and is more likely to turn into a tick-box exercise than a coherent plan of achieving meaningful change."
A reader calling themselves White Hetro Male – who stressed he was "not Sid the Sexist from Viz" – meanwhile said he had "no issues with" women being given top jobs, but said that had to be on the basis of merit alone.
"What does a quota say? I had to employ a woman because I need three of them in the section? This attitude demeans women and could mean that the wrong person gets the job, or the woman who got the job (on merit) could be looked at as – 'you only got the job because you're a woman'"
He added: "Surely quotas are wrong and, at best, could cause upset in the workforce and, at worst, are potentially discriminatory and illegal. Quotas will not change mindsets of the people that believe that managers have to be male – only education can do that."
One anonymous commenter dubbed the announcement a "smooth political move" by the opposition. But they said it hadn't convinced them to change their view of Labour. "I still don't like them as a political party," they added.
Eton mess?
There was also much debate triggered by our report on former cabinet minister Lord Waldegrave's threat to resign the Tory whip in the House of Lords if the Cabinet Office presses ahead with its plan to start ask civil service applicants more about their backgrounds – including whether or not they went to private school.
In a bid to get more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds into the flagship Fast Stream graduate programme, minister Matt Hancock has said the civil service will be one of the first UK employers to use a new checklist, which could also include questions on the postcode an individual lived in at a young age, whether they have received school meals, and whether they have ever had refugee or asylum status.
The plans are currently out to consultation, but Lord Waldegrave, who is Provost of Eton college, has said the proposal amounts to “actively seeking to damage” independent schools.
There was some sympathy for that view among CSW readers this week.
"Whilst I'm totally in agreement with social mobility, I wholeheartedly agree with Lord Waldergrave," wrote Susan. "Access to higher education, but more especially to jobs, should be based on fair and open competition and ability. The need to know information such as whether someone had school dinners is, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, insulting. But isn't the Fast Streaming part of the problem?"
Monty also backed the Tory peer, saying that the latest plans were less about "inclusion and merit" than about "bigotry, exclusion and discrimination".
"If the Fast Stream is the problem abolish it," he added. "The Armed Forces don't have anything like that and seem to be pretty effective. And before anyone starts, I am from a 'working class' background. I just cannot stand bigotry and hypocrisy."
Evan, however, turned Lord Waldegrave's argument that it was "quite wrong to punish children for decisions taken by their parents" on its head. He wrote: "Isn't that the existing problem we're trying to solve though?"
And when Guardian journalist Dawn Foster shared our story on Twitter, she got this reaction:
@DawnHFoster I never understand why it doesn't occur to these people that public schools are in themselves a form of "social engineering'.
— Justin Horton (@ejhchess) June 1, 2016