***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
=============================================================
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57608716
I don't really care if Hancock stays or goes, but surprised I am not.
These guys aren't fit to run a jumble sale.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Jun 23 at 11:05
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57612441
not sure how you can screw your attractive aide without breaking social distancing?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 26 Jun 21 at 22:08
|
I read one of his el cheapo LFT test sticks had broken in her tonsils and he was trying to get it out with his tongue.
Could be mistaken of course :-)
|
|
It would be a shame if he was sacked over that, rather than lying to the public. If sexual peccadilloes put him beyond the pale then Johnson's on thin ice, so I think Hancock is safe enough.
|
>> It would be a shame if he was sacked over that, rather than lying to
>> the public. If sexual peccadilloes put him beyond the pale then Johnson's on thin ice,
>> so I think Hancock is safe enough.
The affair comes under the heading of stuff happens; a matter for Mr and Mrs Hancock.
The woman's appointment as an adviser and non exec is another matter entirely.
|
I agree with Bromp. I don't much care about his affair, one way or the other.
But if he appointed someone to a role when he was already having an affair with her, irrespective of the correct procedures being followed, then that is unacceptable and they both need to go.
|
In The Times it reports that Hancock was pictured* kissing Coladangelo in the office. So utter stupidity would be another reason for kicking him out.
Just how stupid are these people.
As an aside The Times let itself down by sinking to use of the term "Taxpayers' money".
*I assume that "pictured" is used to mean photographed rather than imagined.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 25 Jun 21 at 13:58
|
>>*I assume that "pictured" is used to mean photographed rather than imagined.
To answer myself, then yes. Captured on security cameras in the office snogging Coladangelo and groping her butt. No possible interpretation as a "platonic kiss".
|
>> In The Times it reports that Hancock was pictured* kissing Coladangelo in the office. So
>> utter stupidity would be another reason for kicking him out.
A bit of speculation in the media this morning about method and motivation for leaking the pictures - including whether Dominic Cummings finger prints were on the thing.
It's almost inconceivable that staff in his Private Office didn't know, or at least strongly suspect, there was something between them.
After yesterday's stills there is now a video clip. Hancock speaks to somebody on the other side of a door, presumably a member of his staff before closing the door and having a lengthy snog with Ms Coladangelo. The person/people on the other side of that door must have known what was going on. Private Offices' might not leak like sieves but the fact that the Boss is 'in flagrante' with a staff member will reach the departmental grapevine.
It's also incredibly difficult to have an affair, or even be close friends, without other people seeing the body language between two people; differing attitudes to personal space for example. A wholly platonic male/female friendship is likely to have a different 'vibe' to male/male relationships and colleagues will clock that. That John Major and Edwina Curry managed to keep it secret with only their Minister Tony Newton, and perhaps the Whips, knowing was something of an achievement.
I suspect more will emerge.
I'd also imagine Hancock is having a squeaky bum moment over whether there's another installment tomorrow......
|
>> The affair comes under the heading of stuff happens; a matter for Mr and Mrs
>> Hancock.
Too late for edit. He does though look a bit of a chump after his comments about Prof Ferguson's transgression which have been replayed on the News today.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 25 Jun 21 at 13:32
|
|
Surely Boris won't sack him, that would be the height of hypocrisy. Then again, I wonder who leaked the picture. Someone who wants him out?
|
>>Surely Boris won't sack him, that would be the height of hypocrisy
If he fires him for having an affair, per se, then perhaps. But if he was fired for breaching employment law or similar, then not so much.
As for the leak, I suspect that there is a security guard whose career direction is no longer up. Especially since no doubt The Sun gave him a fair chunk of change for the video.
Personally I think Hancock should be fired for being thick as s***, but breaching employment law will do just as well.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 25 Jun 21 at 15:09
|
What's the going rate for something like this? 20k?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 26 Jun 21 at 22:11
|
>> Personally I think Hancock should be fired for being thick as s***,
The House of Commons (and the Lords come to that) would be empty.
|
>> Surely Boris won't sack him, that would be the height of hypocrisy. Then again, I
>> wonder who leaked the picture. Someone who wants him out?
>>
Maybe it was Dominic Cummins revenge?
|
|
I think we have seen the birth of a new phrase for an office affair… “ breach of social distancing rules”.
|
To quote my brother:
'The worst thing about this isn't that he cheated on his wife. Nor is it that there could be "conflicts of interest".
It's that this story was broken by The Sun and they couldn't even create a headline involving a pun on his name.
Shame on you The Sun. I expect better.'
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 25 Jun 21 at 16:21
|
That he's not been sacked is outrageous. Ministers have fallen for having affairs and / or breaking the law in the past.
This is especially galling as Hancock was telling us to follow the rules so closely.
Of course the PM is known for his alleged affairs. Does that have a bearing?
It really does seem to be a different set of rules for them.
I work for Financial PLC which the GOVT does NOT have any shareholding in, yet a Govt Quango has ordered staff to be sacked and barred from the industry for not following the rules - for some minor things as well (even when the company has just given them a warning).
|
>> That he's not been sacked is outrageous. Ministers have fallen for having affairs and /
>> or breaking the law in the past.
IMHO having an affair as in adultery is not sacking offence. I've witnessed a few colleagues 'go over the side together'. It's usually ended in tears and them being separated by postings that may not suit but maybe Sheila and Nigel or Peter and Janet were a good shag for each other.
The issue here is that (a) she was an unpaid adviser but with a Westminster pass that might have advanced her PR career and (b) she was made a non exec.
Both of those need looking at.
|
>> she was an unpaid adviser
"Mr Hancock had put Miss Coladangelo, a friend from university, on the public payroll only last year."
I also believe she's a £15k/yr directorship in some NHS QANGO, but I can't be bothered to find it.
|
For once I agree entirely with Bromp and this post.
|
IMHO having an affair as in adultery is not sacking offence. I've witnessed a few
>> colleagues 'go over the side together'. It's usually ended in tears and them being separated
>> by postings that may not suit but maybe Sheila and Nigel or Peter and Janet
>> were a good shag for each other.
Ah the 24 hour posting, last saw one about 4/5 years ago. Sent 100-150 miles away, his feet didn't touch the floor. He wasn't married but she was!
|
>> IMHO having an affair as in adultery is not sacking offence. I've witnessed a few
>> colleagues 'go over the side together'. It's usually ended in tears and them being separated
>> by postings that may not suit but maybe Sheila and Nigel or Peter and Janet
>> were a good shag for each other.
If every politician, business leader, sportsman etc who had an affair had to resign we'd have lost thousands of valuable people over the years.
I think the people who make the most fuss about others sexual behaviour often do so because they feel they are missing out themselves.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 26 Jun 21 at 22:11
|
Surely it’s about trust.
If someone can’t be trusted to keep a vow to their loved one then expect to be truly focked by them in every other aspect of your dealings with them!
I don’t care if people have affairs but I personally wouldn’t put someone in a position of trust if they were married and had an affair. Their trustworthiness has been seriously impacted.
|
>>I don't care if people have affairs but I personally wouldn't put someone in a position of trust if they were married and had an affair. Their trustworthiness has been seriously impacted.
Disagree - imagine the impact on lawyers, doctors, teachers, policemen, judges, etc.
Doesn't really reflect their professional standards.
OTOH Hancock has blown his credibility to lead on matters of health and authority to effectively tell 60 million people how to act safely.
Hence he should go.
|
>>Hence he should go.
He can't be fired for hypocrisy.
It is not clear to me that employment law applies here, at least not directly.
He can't be fired for breaking COVID rules.
So if he goes, it will be through resignation, probably as a result of pressure.
But so far it would appear that the British people don't care much, at least not en masse. And that's probably what it will take.
|
>> He can't be fired for hypocrisy.
>> It is not clear to me that employment law applies here, at least not directly.
>> He can't be fired for breaking COVID rules.
He can be fired for breaching the Ministerial Code. The Nolan Principles do not allow employing your Mistress. Not only should you not show favour but, if there is any conflict you should declare it and butt out completely in any selection process.
The PM however has already let Patel stay in post after a breach. There must be a worry that while BoJo is at the helm the Code is not worth the paper it's written on.
I seriously worry about the insight of the British people when they say it doesn't matter who paid for Boris's wallpaper. Are folks seriously so short sighted and so tied to the 'taxpayers money' mantra that they see only the saving to the public purse and not the Minister beholden to donors?
Caught a bit of an article about a focus group on Times Radio. Two of them thought Boris was 'one of us' and Keir Starmer a posh boy from Public School.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 26 Jun 21 at 17:45
|
>>
>> Caught a bit of an article about a focus group on Times Radio. Two of
>> them thought Boris was 'one of us' and Keir Starmer a posh boy from Public
>> School.
>>
When exactly the opposite is true.
Of course Boris's side had the Turkey joining the EU as a scare tactic, when he has recent Turkish ancestry!
You couldn't make it up!
|
I seriously worry about the insight of the British people when they say it doesn't matter who paid for Boris's wallpaper. Are folks seriously so short sighted and so tied to the 'taxpayers money' mantra that they see only the saving to the public purse and not the Minister beholden to donors?
They are but that particular attempt was weak, if anyone is trying to create a scandal it's a Good example of what not to do.
> Caught a bit of an article about a focus group on Times Radio. Two of
>> them thought Boris was 'one of us' and Keir Starmer a posh boy from Public
>> School.
>>
Nothing unusual in that, perfectly possible for people from working class backgrounds to come across as remote/cold/aloof. And likewise people from well off backgrounds that can relate to people. I'm not sure why that's of any surprise?
|
>> I don’t care if people have affairs but I personally wouldn’t put someone in a
>> position of trust if they were married and had an affair. Their trustworthiness has been
>> seriously impacted.
It's more complicated than that.
In some cases it may be a simple issue of trust. I had a colleague from around 2003-5 who's wife was pregnant. From what he said it wasn't planned and he's older than me. He was brazenly sitting in the office planning a liaison with another woman while on an organisational 'Awaydays' event in the North.
I also know his previous wife from another role. He must have known I'd know her but studiously avoided mention of her. On her account he cheated her too. Wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. I got his role in the event up North re-allocated......
Events like that, where people have worked hard together and then had a meal and bar, perhaps with the firm's money buying some drink. Two disinhibited colleagues can easily end up with a 'roll in the Hay'
Others cases are just another brick in the wall of a relationship that's already falling to bits.
|
>>I don’t care if people have affairs but I personally wouldn’t put someone in a position of trust if they were married and had an affair. Their trustworthiness has been seriously impacted.
That is simply not true.
Do you believe that everybody in a bank who has had an affair should be dismissed since they will inevitably steal from the bank?
I have known completely trustworthy people who had had affairs. Sometimes for reasons I understand.
I have known complete villains who are utterly faithful to their partners.
I have known people who have made mistakes while drunk and lonely, I have known people do it deliberately.
etc. etc.
I have no idea why Hancock do it, neither do I care, neither do I attach any importance to it.
Breaking rules that he would enforce against others is not acceptable. Being stupid enough to do so is doubly not.
|
>>Of course the PM is known for his alleged affairs. Does that have a bearing?
No.
|
Boris is no leader*.
Leaders make decisions - the decision is easy in this case: Hancock has made his position untenable, and has ruined his credibility as secretary of state for Health in a pandemic.
If he doesn't walk he should be ejected.
* leaders make decisions - BoJo appears incapable until his number of options is down to one.
|
>..leaders make decisions - BoJo appears incapable until his number of options is down to one.
I think that Hancock would already be gone if he could have been given the boot without BJ and the sleaze in Govt. becoming the centre of attention rather than Hancock himself. Just a matter of timing and opportunity now. Won't be long hopefully - he comes across as a devious, scheming, incompetent creep.
|
Boris has a standard tactic for dealing with shouts for different ministers or advisers to resign.
Get minister/advisor to admit fault and apologise, accept apology, tell media the matter is now closed. Deflect any questions that subsequently arise with "it's been dealt with".
The only time this has not worked (I think) is with Cummings who made the mistake of a fatuous elaboration of his trip to Barnard Castle to "test his eyesight". Had he simply said "I made a terrible mistake in taking a brief trip to BC and apologise wholeheartedly" he may still be in post.
|
On the one hand he's no great loss and will be seamlessly be replaced by someone no better, no worse and with no greater integrity.
If he went because he was stupid or breaking rules then good.
But the amount of bitter and hypocritical sanctimony, some with ulterior motivation, is beyond belief and very sad.
I do believe that the phrase "let he who is without sin........" should be born in mind more often.
|
|
frankly its been a crap job to have right now, I bet he's quite relieved.
|
I'd go back to a much earlier point; what is going to bring Boris down will not be COVID, it will be the normal day to day detail which will give him. I trust his ability to survive any crisis, but mundane routine is sure to nail him.
Living out COVID 8,000 miles from the UK it's very interesting to watch the UK media and public reaction without any particular personal frustration or annoyance. Or stake in the game, really.
For many months stupid little sensationalist nitpicking and stone throwing has been replaced by a desperate need to be the bigger man (or media outlet) in a time of crisis. Something Boris excels at, I think.
As the crisis has receded the immature, sensationalist, mercenary, sanctimonious and hypocritical behaviour focussed on often irrelevant yet emotive detail has galloped back onto the scene. Something Boris doesn't deal with well.
|
Apparently the camera was hidden in a smoke detector.
I suspect fairly strong questions are being asked loudly.
|
|
I also suspect that we are going to see a flow of other things dun wrong by Hancock.
|
>> Apparently the camera was hidden in a smoke detector.
Covert filming in a ministerial office? They'll be oiling the hinges on Traitor's Gate.
|
>> Apparently the camera was hidden in a smoke detector.
>>
>> I suspect fairly strong questions are being asked loudly.
A friend of mine was a Departmental Security Officer. Bet he's glad to be retired now. Not just the health department that's going to have to be swept.
A quick Google shows just how easily and cheaply available smoke detectors with a concealed camera actually are. Prices start well under £50 though I suspect the device here was more sophisticated.
Tiny spy cameras in cars etc are cropping up as part of the armoury of the perpetrators of domestic abuse, controlling relationships etc.
|
>> >>Hidden cameras...
>>
>> It was nothing so dramatic.
There seems to be some contention about whether CCTV coverage extends to Minister's Offices. On the one hand should they be spied on? On the other should there be capacity to detect intrusion, in or out of hours.
Contemporaneous reports from 2003, when there was an allegation of rape of one employee by another in the Lord Chancellors personal office, refer to CCTV being examined.
|
Surely proper clearance / vetting processes apply to anyone with access to the cctv?
|
We live in a CCTV world so I guess one should be used to being snooped on.
Re the ministers office having CCTV then there is an issue with regards secret materials / discussions being recorded.
They should do what we do at work and have rooms for meetings where there are no media devices allowed. No phones, cameras, electronic watches etc. We use these for deals where there is market sensitive information or "Chinese Walls" in place around a deal. They can only be accessed by three relevant people being given the passkeys and they are held by an oversight team so it would also stop people using them for a quickie.
|
|
The DoE isn't really an area that there would be lots /any secret material or much protectively marked. Very unlikely anyone would need strap/DV clearance to work there.
|
All government department discuss, plan and act on very sensitive information which may cover military, commercial, economic, policy issues. Assuming you mean Department of Health - eg:
- nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare contingency plans
- NHS funding plans
- hospital and social care reorganisation
- response to public enquiries
- recruitment and training of staff - overseas vs home grown
- NHS pay awards
- etc etc
That they don't all involve invasion by a foreign power does not remove the need for complete confidentiality. Resulting final conclusions need to be communicated in an organised and thoughtful way. Unauthorised leaks are simply not acceptable.
|
>> All government department discuss, plan and act on very sensitive information which may cover military,
>> commercial, economic, policy issues.
The protective marking system seems to have changed since I left the Civil Service. My recollection in the Justice Ministry was that a lot of stuff was marked Restricted.
That mark would be followed by a category such as Policy, Appointments (eg recruitment of Quango Members) or Honours (people being put up for gongs). There were more than just three descriptors I think there was a defined list but I cannot recall all of them. Two others were Staff (eg personnel records - what used to be Staff in Confidence) and Commercial/Contracts.
Extremely sensitive stuff, for example Judicial Appointments or Discipline, might have been Secret but I cannot remember stuff I'd see once in a blue moon at 8 years distance.
|
|
Yes I did mean the DoH, I don't think I made myself clear.Yes government departments need to be careful with information . That doesn't mean everything is held at the highest level of classification and people need to be dv/strap cleared.
|
|
I'm familiar with DV but what is strap?
|
>> There seems to be some contention about whether CCTV coverage extends to Minister's Offices.
Javid has said there should be no CCTV in Minister's offices and that Some Tory MPs have been livid at the revelation a CCTV camera was recording movements in what they say is a private space where confidential meetings should be able to be conducted.
Surely the Minister's diary will record ALL his meetings.
If he wants no camera and orders it removed then I guess that's his call. He might regret it if there's an intrusion.
|
There are some very serious questions to be asked irrespective of Hancocks actions - who put the device there, why was Hancock apparently unaware of its existence, why were security critical offices not frequently swept for bugs, who released the imagery to the press, did money change hands in the process etc etc.
Are the security services equally relaxed about No 10, MoD, COBRA meetings etc etc. Hancock will not be the only casualty.
|
I'm a little surprised that an "official" camera was there at all but what do I know?
Do we know that the security services are relaxed about it? I'd have assumed a drains-up into it is already under way.
|
After Gina Colangelo was caught kissing Matt Hancock, experts have advised her to self-isolate as she has evidently lost all sense of taste.
|
I am anticipating a storm over use of private non-secure email (gmail) at the top of government too. No-one really queried Boris and Cummings use of WhatsApp but it seems they weren't alone. Also the way the govt has hung some small UK drug innovators out to dry by reneging on contracts.
This one could run and run!!
|
Here's the minutes of a civil service meeting which discusses some of the email background, particularly in relation to Abingdon Health, which was successful in winning a huge contract for Covid testing
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TpnrWi40hu51LrSaHgArxCvsTvnHklZV
and some more background on the perceived issues with that contract
goodlawproject.org/update/hancock-bethell-failed-declare-meeting/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social%20media&utm_campaign=abingdon%202806
|
>> Here's the minutes of a civil service meeting which discusses some of the email background,
>> particularly in relation to Abingdon Health, which was successful in winning a huge contract for
>> Covid testing
>>
>> drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TpnrWi40hu51LrSaHgArxCvsTvnHklZV
Above file tells me I need permission to access it.
|
So Zahawi has gone. PM sacked him so probability is he refused to resign.
Getting in a mess with tax when an avoidance measure blows up in your face is one thing.
His lack of honesty in disclosing it and use of lawyers letters and threats to journalists who disclosed it is the real offence.
|
Yeah, Bluster denial and defiance as a defence never goes well with the electorate.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Jan 23 at 10:33
|
>> So Zahawi has gone. PM sacked him so probability is he refused to resign.
>>
...I doubt he was given the opportunity. Rishi needed the opportunity to appear to be "strong", and I doubt Zahawi would have been able to resist a "request" to resign.
|
>> ...I doubt he was given the opportunity. Rishi needed the opportunity to appear to be
>> "strong", and I doubt Zahawi would have been able to resist a "request" to resign.
The blogger Dan Neidle who did much of the legwork exposing this has published a copy of the ethics adviser's letter to the PM:
taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/Ethics_conclusions.pdf?
Damning doesn't really cover it.
|
All a bit hurried, I wonder if there is a backstory to emerge?
Private Eye has been sniffing around a suspected monetary black hole in SNP finances for some time - her husband is Scots Nat party CEO and has been the subject of a police inquiry IIRC.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 15 Feb 23 at 10:49
|
>> All a bit hurried, I wonder if there is a backstory to emerge?
Claims it's nothing to do with the transgender issue and the negative effect on public enthusiasm for independence
|
|
If she's available, she'd be a big improvement on anything we've got. Outstanding politician.
|
>> If she's available, she'd be a big improvement on anything we've got. Outstanding politician.
We need to import Jacinda Ardern
|
>> We need to import Jacinda Ardern
Good shout.
|
>> >> If she's available, she'd be a big improvement on anything we've got. Outstanding politician.
>>
>> We need to import Jacinda Ardern
>>
She always came across a bit wet to me.
|
>> Sturgeon gone.
Fan-Dabi-Dozi
|
I am surprised that this seems to have taken many people by surprise.
SNP are at a crossroads. Their raison d'etre is at a very steep uphill road.
Iain Blackford was a close ally and was ousted from the Westminster Group. The "lady in waiting" in Scotland is Kate Forbes but she is a strict Christian and "a wee free" and has strong differing views on abortion, gay marriage etc. There is no obvious replacement for her which in one hand is scathing for the SNP, but on the other shows she carries the weight of the party at all times.
Westminster Govt have blocked another indie vote and there is no obvious method of obtaining one.
The rise of Labour in England means that they can no longer use independence as a vote winner to get away from the permanent Tory UK Govt ruling us.
Add in their coalition with the Greens and having to agree to some of their demands.
Sturgeon is not a "whats in it for me" leader, her background before politics was as a lawyer fighting for the rights of the underprivileged. She doesnt have too many airs and graces about her and actually lives not too far away from me on a modern housing estate.
She led the country through the pandemic and stood up daily to give updates whilst other leaders were having office parties! I do firmly believe she is the best leader in UK by far. Certainly much better than any recent incumbents in Westminster.
My choice to replace her would be Joanna Cherry but that won't happen. Her deputy, John Swinney must be a candidate but I would rather watch paint dry than listen to him. There is not any Scottish cabinet minister that I can see as being a suitable replacement and that is a scathing indictment on the succession planning of the party.
|
>> I am surprised that this seems to have taken many people by surprise.
Internal SNP politics tends not to make news outside Scotland.
>>
but she is a strict Christian and "a
>> wee free"
Wee free?
|
>> Wee free?
A small sub-sect of Scottish Presbyterianism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wee_Free#
|
That wiki article was in English but I'd have to spend the rest of the week on there to understand it.
I'll settle for, she's religious.
|
Angus Robertson is evens, everyone else trailing. I doubt Forbes would do it at the moment, could be career ending in a short period.
Unclear why NS jumped today, only a few weeks ago she had 'plenty left in the tank' - skeletons in the party funding cupboard jangling loudly?!?
If they want independence, then they should stop harping on about it, get on with fixing the problems, and the case will [maybe] make itself.
|
|
I opened the YouTube expecting to see that you'd meant this for the Raquel Welch thread!! :-)
|
>> Angus Robertson is evens, everyone else trailing. I doubt Forbes would do it at the
>> moment, could be career ending in a short period.
>>
I was wrong, Robertson is out, and Forbes is in. So she must be favourite now.
|
> Unclear why NS jumped today, only a few weeks ago she had 'plenty left in
>> the tank' - skeletons in the party funding cupboard jangling loudly?!?
Looks it may well have been.
news.sky.com/story/fresh-questions-about-what-nicola-sturgeon-did-or-did-not-know-12850393
|
|
...I understand she's identified as a man, anticipating sharing a cell with Boris.....
|
>> ...I understand she's identified as a man, anticipating sharing a cell with Boris.....
Dear god, the thought of Boris transitioning to female..........
|
>> >> ...I understand she's identified as a man, anticipating sharing a cell with Boris.....
>>
>> Dear god, the thought of Boris transitioning to female..........
Tho I guess BBD would.
|
... and Sturgeon released
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65873423
without charge, pending further investigations.
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 11 Jun 23 at 18:03
|
|
He was supposed to be aome sort of super bright legal type, he came across as a bit clueless. No idea how he had so many top jobs under 4 different PMs. Must have had a lot of compromising material.
|
Also many of his loyal colleagues who vehemently supported him during interviews basically saying 'move along nothing to see here'.
|
I didn't teach him, as I'd moved on by then, but Raab was a pupil at a certain prestigious school in Buckinghamshire and I have the occasional lunch with some of the teaching staff who had the dubious privilege of attempting to educate him.
There was an incident where he was reprimanded for something or other. His response was along the lines of "Don't speak to me like that. My father's cleaner earns more than you do."
Arrogant, or what?
|
>> Arrogant, or what?
Maybe, but at least the cleaners got well paid.
|
Seems someone doesn't like him, from wiki article about said school.
'A thoroughly unpleasant individual and not a great advert for his former school. He wrote a very dismissive resignation letter saying it was not his fault and I'd imagine that annoying throbbing vein on his forehead was going into over-drive as he wrote it.'
|
|
I know a CS graduate entry who worked in his department. He had witnessed multiple occasions of arrogant verbal bullying of junior staff. The line managers did not have the balls to stand up for them! Any defence was seen as career limiting behaviour.
|
The report makes it clear that some of the group of civil servants who signed the initial complaint had never even met Raab, let alone been the subject of abuse from him.
I have no time for Raab - he seemed an arrogant "head boy" type. However it is clear that the relationship between CS and elected officials is far from acceptable.
CS should deliver public services and support the government of the day to develop and implement its policies. To judge from both Raabs resignation letter and the investigation it seems the CS acted independently and outside the remit agreed by ministers.
This needs resolution - it almost certainly happened at the Home Office with Priti at the helm, and probably Suella. Perhaps CS should be more publicly accountable for the outcome of actions of ministers they support rather than hiding behind a veil of ministerial responsibility.
|
>> The report makes it clear that some of the group of civil servants who signed
>> the initial complaint had never even met Raab, let alone been the subject of abuse
>> from him.
Have you read Adam Tolley KC's report in full?
|
Perhaps I'm in a minority of one but amongst all the commentary I've seen and heard, a huge point has not been mentioned.
Just read his "apology" and it's immediately obvious who the problem is.
"I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt as a result of the pace, standards, and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice. That is, however, what the public expect of ministers working on their behalf".
He has completely missed the concept of how you get people to want to do things. The best boss I ever had was notorious for not suffering fools and for his expectation of a high work rate and high standards. He was also fearsomely intelligent and the people who worked for him would pretty well follow him anywhere.
Raab, apparently, achieved the opposite. I suspect he isn't fearsomely intelligent in any way useful for leadership, and he managed to demotivate rather than motivate. He was the common factor in the complaints that followed him around, to which he is totally blind. Scores of other ministers have managed to run their departments without attracting complaints of bullying.
Loyalty is a two way street, as is respect, and I believe those are critically absent from Raab's repertoire. He clearly engenders neither, and almost certainly didn't show them to his team.
I'm quite prepared to believe that the CS was out to get him, but I also think he and his supporters are blind to the reasons for that. Bottom line - he was a serial failure at ministering, and nobody wanted to work for him.
|
|
His letter and comments after the event tell you ALL you need to know about him
|
Predictably JRM seems to be supporting him.
|
Not a subject that is remotely safe to pontificate on, absolutely no upside even if she hadn't put her foot in it.
I suspect Starmer will be pleased, she can now be purged.
|
|
...gives an opportunity for "Sir Softy" to appear decisive....
|
Love the " French Bulldog " look !
Ted
|
>> The report makes it clear that some of the group of civil servants who signed
>> the initial complaint had never even met Raab, let alone been the subject of abuse
>> from him.
If you read the report you'll find there were complaints from various offices in which Raab had been Minister. They included the Dept for Exiting the EU, Iterations of the Foreign Office and the MoJ. In the latter case some people contributed to support colleges; they were. if you like, witnesses. Anybody who has worked in a toxic environment will understand having 'picked up the pieces'.
>> I have no time for Raab - he seemed an arrogant "head boy" type. However
>> it is clear that the relationship between CS and elected officials is far from acceptable.
As Manatee says it's abundantly clear that Raab is totally lacking in people skills. If that's how he works then you've all you need for a relationship that's not acceptable. See the account of Raab's dealing with Afghan refugees and rejecting something in the 'wrong sort of Excel'.
>> CS should deliver public services and support the government of the day to develop and
>> implement its policies.
Of course they should but equally if, and I suspect this was an issue in the MOJ, Ministers are proposing stuff that will cost a fortune while failing to achieve its objective then the CS are obliged to tell Ministers what they won't want to hear.
>>To judge from both Raabs resignation letter and the investigation it seems
>> the CS acted independently and outside the remit agreed by ministers.
That's what Raab says. It was, it seems, one person. Raab's exceeding the remit is another man's asking what if...
>> This needs resolution - it almost certainly happened at the Home Office with Priti at
>> the helm, and probably Suella.
See above re policies that cannot achieve what they set out to while causing a packet of trouble.
In the case of Patel and even more so Braverman they're simply not up tp the role; barrell scrapings..
|
When I look back there was a period when I think I was arguably bullied by someone who never shouted or swore either, and in fact had a fairly pleasant manner. But he was just impossible to work for. Whatever I did it seemed was criticised because I hadn't apparently done it in the way he expected. My initial response was to start asking him how exactly he wanted me to do this that or the other, to which he would reply that it was up to me because I was the subject matter expert!
My solution to an intolerable situation was to get another job and to resign, which went down very badly - I was marched off the premises by security, put on gardening leave for three months, and threatened with having my home searched for confidential information if they thought there was any likelihood that I had any stashed.
So yes, making someone's life a misery does not necessitate shouting and swearing.
|
At the end of day bad managers are a way of life. They rarely last long enough to to be bothered about, you simply manage your way round them, or exploit them, more often than not they disappear somewhere else, rarely to places that can cause you issue later on.
Problem with ministers is they have eyes on the great prize, not very often on being effective in role.
|
>> At the end of day bad managers are a way of life.
As the Tolley report makes clear, a Minister is not the manager; that responsibility rests with a Civil Servant. If you've written or said something that's not what he wants he should say so politely and constructively. If he thinks you're incompetent or insubordinate he should 'phone or minute your manager, not humiliate you in front of colleagues as reported by Tolley..
>> Problem with ministers is they have eyes on the great prize, not very often on
>> being effective in role.
This has got much worse in recent years.
|
|
Re BBC chairman, clearly its not due to any failings on his part, merely a matter of bad luck and principle. The BBC has a tricky tightrope to walk trying to maintain impartiality from both sides
|
|
Yes but principle is (or perhaps should be) important in public appointments. The more that came out, the more likely it was that he would have to go.
|
>>
>> In the case of Patel and even more so Braverman they're simply not up tp
>> the role; barrell scrapings..
>>
Which by the sound of it was exactly Raab's view of the civil servants.
|
>> Which by the sound of it was exactly Raab's view of the civil servants.
And who is right?
|
After reading the report, much as I hate to say it, I think Raab was right.
He effectively got the boot because one or two people found him 'abrasive' and focused on getting the job done.
|
>> He effectively got the boot because one or two people found him 'abrasive' and focused
>> on getting the job done.
Are you sure you've read Adam Tolley's report?
|
|
The only issue which led to his resignation was the FCDO complaint, widely understood to relate to the ambassador in Spain who was removed from post-Brexit negotiations. The report does not investigate whether Raab's opinion was justified or not, just that he used intemperate language.
|
The FCDO complaint which, as you say is believed to report to one individual, was only part.
There is also a similar finding in relation to one of the two complaints from the MoJ. See para 172 of the Tolley report.
Those findings collectively were what led him to resign, Raab himself says that 'only' two of the four complaints were upheld.
|
|
The FCDO complaint was two separate complaints. See paras. 152 and 153.
|
>Are you sure you've read Adam Tolley's report?
You having problems reading the first four words of my post?
|
>> You having problems reading the first four words of my post?
Of course not; just that the view you express is totally at odds with what Tolley found. He also makes clear he's been light on detail about the allegations because of the risk of people being identified.
|
|
If you are an army general and one of your commanders does not follow their instructions, are you no longer allowed to give them a b'ing?
|
>> If you are an army general and one of your commanders does not follow their
>> instructions, are you no longer allowed to give them a b'ing?
The Army is a different environment to 'normal' work but I'm sure you are.
Equally, if you're a Senior Civil Servant and one of your Grade 7 staff wilfully fails follow their instructions you're allowed to give them a b'ing.
Whether the Secretary of State for Defence is OK delivering a b,ing to, say, a Colonel in front of other officers is a more relevant comparison.
|
>> Whether the Secretary of State for Defence is OK delivering a b,ing to, say, a
>> Colonel in front of other officers is a more relevant comparison.
>>
Depends on the reason, ministers are entitled that their instructions are followed. Whether those carrying it agree is irrelevant. That may be an ethical policy or an odd way they like their briefs prepared. I don't think it's unreasonable that a SoS pulls up a CS tasked with said job. I don't think anyone would object to that, its all in the manner and why the bullocking is given.
That's a generic point rather than the report about Raab.
|
>Of course not;
That was hardly constructive was it then?
>just that the view you express is totally at odds with what Tolley found.
No it isn't. That may be your personal interpretation but it certainly isn't mine. It states that he was abrasive but not abusive. He didn't shout or swear and didn't dwell on previous errors. He didn't target anyone in particular and the slate was wiped clean after any criticism. It boils down to some individuals who Tolley agrees may have felt intimidated by being criticised unconstructively in front of others.
>He also makes clear he's been light on detail about the allegations because of the risk of people being identified.
WTF has that to do with it? Are you trying to imply that Tolley did not take everything into account?
|
>> >Of course not;
>>
>> That was hardly constructive was it then?
As we've observed before irony doesn't always travel well in Cyberspace.
>> WTF has that to do with it? Are you trying to imply that Tolley did
>> not take everything into account?
No. I'm reiterating what Tolley spells out in his report about his approach to the task and specifically confidentiality. See para 40 of the report.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 29 Apr 23 at 17:08
|
>As we've observed before irony doesn't always travel well in Cyberspace.
No it doesn't does it?
>No. I'm reiterating what Tolley spells out in his report...
Tolley repeats in other paras that he omits detail that would identify individuals. I asked why you think that has relevance to the report.
|
>> Tolley repeats in other paras that he omits detail that would identify individuals. I asked
>> why you think that has relevance to the report.
In simple terms:
He knows more than you or I do.
|
>He knows more than you or I do.
I sincerely hope so. Wasn't that the point of an investigation?
So it has sweet FA to do with the report but you think it's relevant to your interpretation?
Go figure.
|
>> >> Which by the sound of it was exactly Raab's view of the civil servants.
>>
>> And who is right?
Look for the common factor. Raab. These complaints followed him around. Arrogant and clueless, can anybody name his achievements?
|
|
Six of one and half dozen of the other I think. Yes Raab has an abrasive style, rather introverted and lacking people skills but the civil service can obstructive at times as documented by many ministers of all stripes. Simplistic to judge all issues on a partisan basis.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 29 Apr 23 at 08:49
|
>>Simplistic to judge all issues on a partisan basis.
Indeed. I have a conscious, and possibly unconscious, bias and anybody who says they haven't should be treated with caution.
Whatever happened, it's clear his antennae don't function. His market value would be higher now if he had accepted some responsibility, instead we got the classic "I'm too conscientious and people can't cope with it" which is just ludicrous from someone in that position.
Glancing at the papers this morning I see Steve Barclay is being impugned, possibly traduced, in similar vein. So maybe there is a bit of a bandwagon, but he does come across as something of a berk. I'll take your hint and reserve judgement.
|
Dominic Raabs father worked as a food buyer for M&S. His mother was a clothes buyer. He was not blessed with a silver spoon, but seems to have benefitted from a fairly unremarkable comfortable middle class, middle income family.
He attended a grammar school and got his law degree at Cambridge Uni. He may not be a world class intellect (few are) but stupid he is not!
I agree he may be arrogant with other major character and behavioural flaws.
If we restrict leadership only to those who have never sinned, the candidates left in the leadership race will be dominated by the virtuous and vacuous. They value risk avoidance. Most progress (social, business, technical etc) is initiated by risk takers who challenge the accepted norms.
The UK is sliding down international league tables (education, growth, health etc). We need leaders who will take risks, and may annoy and upset some along the way. It may be the butt of some humour, but the politically correct and woke is stifling progress.
|
>> It may be the butt of some humour, but the politically correct and woke is stifling progress.
What do you mean by woke and how/why is it stifling progress?
|
There's stupid, and stupid, as we all know. Clever people do stupid things, as MP's seem frequently to demonstrate. Some people who struggle academically have exceptionally good judgement that takes them to the very top.
There are no doubt effective leaders who upset people, but I doubt if they are effective because they upset people, more despite upsetting them.
Even leaders who upset people have to motivate and inspire to be effective. I've not had the opportunity to see Raab at close quarters but I've not heard or seen any reports of him being such a leader.
I know he is intelligent and in fact has excelled academically. He might even be an excellent lawyer. It's not given to everybody to get the best out of other people. It's not something I am much good at - when I was promoted into a job with half a dozen direct reports and about 40 people, I couldn't wait to get out of it.
Political correctness is an ironic term, a joke, a sneer. "Woke" to me means basic consideration and is only a problem when it goes too far. Aspects of the trans debates for example. I try to be reasonably woke, and most of those who use it as an insult are simply ignorant or obnoxious aren't they? (Think Lee Anderson, Suella Braverman).
|
>>We need leaders who will take risks, and may annoy and upset some along the way
Like the Brexiteers. How did that work out??
|
It seems that perhaps robust management and addressing poor performance is now classed as bullying because it gets a reaction.
Those that join the cut and thrust of the Civil Service with security, healthy salaries and pensions close to the sharp end should maybe expect some pressure. 'Cake and eat it' comes to mind.
|
>> It seems that perhaps robust management and addressing poor performance is now classed as bullying
>> because it gets a reaction.
The boundaries between robust management and bullying/unreasonable conduct have, of course, moved since you and I were newbies in different branches of the public service. If you are (a) a manager and (b) have good reason to deal robustly with the performance of people in accordance with Regs then it's not likely you'd be condemned by an independent investigator.
On that test Raab falls at (a) as Ministers do not manage Civil Servants.
>> Those that join the cut and thrust of the Civil Service with security, healthy salaries
>> and pensions close to the sharp end should maybe expect some pressure. 'Cake and eat
>> it' comes to mind.
Yeah right. Same as the Police?
|
|
Yeap. Except the current pay, pension and conditions are pretty dismal. You'd be surprised at the numbers who don't except to work nights or have to stay on as duties dicate. I belive the attrition rate is currently running at 25% for new larkers. Fancy trying to manage that.
|
Ministers are elected, accountable to parliament, and the public at least every 5 years in a general election. As re-election is the goal, risk taking is inevitable - particularly at a time that polls are against them.
They do not appoint or have the ability to fire their civil servants, but may have some influence.
They may know little about the department which they head, and are reliant on their permanent
staff for informed advice.
Their policies are dominated by public perceptions and media reporting. They are sometimes fortunate that policies align with rational analysis.
Civil Servants are in post to support ministers in the delivery of their policies. They are largely unaccountable. They are secure (pay, pension etc) unless they seriously misbehave.
At a senior level they will probably have several years (or decades) of experience in public administration and some a detailed knowledge of departmental issues
They tend to be risk averse - future promotions and roles may be compromised by making obviously wrong judgements. Jobs tend not to be at risk!
That different views on some issues arise is no surprise. I would expect senior civil servants to be sufficiently robust to defend their views no matter how robust and intense the debate.
Ultimately the minister is accountable.
Similar ministerial behaviour with more junior staff who may not have the seniority or experience to be expected to defend their position is rightly unacceptable.
|
Risk is something to be managed, not something to be sought out.
Truss's "we need to try something different" showed in one phrase why she should not have been in charge of a sweet shop, let alone in 10 Downing Street.
|
Truss's "we need to try something different" showed in one phrase why she should not have been in charge of a sweet shop, let alone in 10 Downing Street.
I find that as strange comment
Whilst absolutely no supporter of Ms Truss the idea that at no time should a leader think that a radically different approach is called for rather that continuing with more of the same is rather odd.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 1 May 23 at 11:52
|
>> Whilst absolutely no supporter of Ms Truss the idea that at no time should a
>> leader think that a radically different approach is called for rather that continuing with more
>> of the same is rather odd.
Yup no reason why some radical new thinking cant be introduced. She was just lacking in the thinking department.
|
Not all new ideas are remotely worth pursuing - Brexit and Trussanomics being obvious recent examples - IMHO.
That change involves risk is not a good reason to dismiss change.
Failing to change can be as destructive as the wrong change. All change involves risk - the real challenge is being right a little more often than wrong.
Last edited by: Terry on Mon 1 May 23 at 19:10
|
|
There is a concept called VAR, value at risk. Not all risks are the same. There can be a risk to doing nothing.
|
>> There is a concept called VAR, value at risk. Not all risks are the same.
>> There can be a risk to doing nothing.
>>
Indeed so why do you think that stating "we need to try something different" automatically mean that you are not fit to manage?
|
>>Indeed so why do you think that stating "we need to try something different" automatically mean that you are not fit to manage?
When it's the economy you are experimenting with? Your question was answered when the experiment was actually done by the unbelievably arrogant and stupid (or is it just corrupt?) Truss and Kwarteng.
Their first action was to dismiss Tom Scholar, because he knew too much about operating the levers of the economy. Then they drove it off a cliff.
|
I’m not denying that Truss made an awful mistake, just disagreeing with your statement that trying something different is necessarily wrong for a leader. Indeed is not the reason for voting for a new leader the hope that they will do something different and not just maintain the status quo.
I rather thing that you hope that Starmer will do something different to Sunak should he be elected and you will be applauding a statement by him that he is going to do something different.
|
>> I rather thing that you hope that Starmer will do something different to Sunak should
>> he be elected and you will be applauding a statement by him that he is
>> going to do something different.
She said what she said about trying something different in relation to economic policy It was clear when she said it that she meant rejecting conventional wisdom which rang alarm bells immediately. I actually thought someone would stop her.
I hope Starmer does something different, yes. But there is no rationale to doing anything just because it is different, as a roll of the dice. Sadly I think he will tend to err (and I mean err) on the side of caution.
What Truss actually did was far more risky than anything Corbyn proposed. And yet...my neighbours here will still elect another Tory. Because Labour "would be worse" despite all the evidence.
|
>> And yet...my neighbours here will still elect another Tory. Because Labour "would be worse" despite all the evidence.
>>
There is no doubt the Tories have made some serious mistakes. But there is no evidence that Labour would do any better, only your expectation.
Given where I live the Labour option is academic - it is a Lib Dem and Tory contest.
I find Labour lacking in clear policies and reliant on generalisations as if this will be sufficient to persuade the electorate how wonderful a proposition they are.
Their ad campaign personally attacking individuals evidences an attachment to the lowest rung of political campaign behaviours. I would not vote for them either - although the Lib Dems may be an effective way to ensure moderation in the (unlikely) event of an outright Tory win!
|
>> I find Labour lacking in clear policies and reliant on generalisations as if this will
>> be sufficient to persuade the electorate how wonderful a proposition they are.
At the moment we're in Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) but at the next GE I believe we move to South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom.
CHH is immoveable and unless the boundary changes add more of Northampton's outer edges than I think Leadsom's not at much risk either.
Tactical vote is probably the way to go.
On policy, I don't think any main opposition party would be spelling out more than top level objectives when we're still a year to eighteen months out from the GE. I'd expect perhaps a bit more meat at the Autumn Conference but the main promises won't appear until much nearer a proper Manifesto. I'm concerned that Starmer is going to far towards what was once Tory territory; more of the rightward drift that led me to resign my membership of Labour in Blair's second term.
|
>>There is no doubt the Tories have made some serious mistakes. But there is no evidence that Labour would do any better, only your expectation.
Compare 1997-2010 with 2010-2023.
I'm not really going to argue it, I am utterly baffled as to why anyone living on earned income would vote Conservative. When I said my neighbours, I meant the voters in South West Herts. Gauke wasn't a bad man, but that is why Johnson kicked him out. Despite being a Labour member for now, I will almost certainly vote Lib Dem as being the party least unlikely to displace the Conservative in this constituency. That is the only sensible criterion on which to vote as far as I can see, it's essential they are kicked out. It's blindingly obvious the dominant forces in the Tory party think working people should be poor and they will do nothing to improve their lives.
The Conservatives are destroying services deliberately. If it's not deliberate then they really are hopelessly incompetent as well as utterly corrupt. Almost nothing works.
I agree with you on the tweets (it's not an ad campaign AFAIK). It's the sort of thing the Conservatives do and the Daily Mail readers lap up, but I wish Labour wouldn't join in.
|
And yet...my neighbours
>> here will still elect another Tory. Because Labour "would be worse" despite all the evidence.
>>
And of course, dyed in the wool Labour voters never stick rigidly to voting Labour, come what may - do they?
|
|
...well, the red wall didn't fall all by itself....
|
>> And of course, dyed in the wool Labour voters never stick rigidly to voting Labour,> come what may - do they?
And what relevance has that to the price of fish?
|
|
I just find the whole of the left side of British politics a bit distasteful at the moment.
|
>> I just find the whole of the left side of British politics a bit distasteful
>> at the moment.
Perhaps. They'd really have to stink to be half as unpalatable as the crooks in charge.
|
|
Heard it before Manatee. All Tories are scum or crooks.
|
>> Heard it before Manatee. All Tories are scum or crooks.
Not all. But a lot of the good ones were thrown out, and the bad eggs are ruling the roost, wouldn't you agree?
|
Sayeeda Warsi is essentially straight shooting - and also concerned about where her party is heading.
www.ft.com/content/b5633263-0366-4469-b965-7f73ea02124f
|
>> Paywalled.
Somebody will be along shortly to tell us where it's not paywalled but Sayeda Warsi has been outspoken for ages. This is recent but by no means the first:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/12/suella-braverman-diversity-cabinet-british-pakistani-men-rishi-sunak
|
|
Braverman is the Conservative's Dianne Abbot - opens her mouth to change feet.
|
>> Braverman is the Conservative's Dianne Abbot - opens her mouth to change feet.
Sort of. In a way. Maybe.
Dianne Abbot has principles and maybe, with age and ill health, she's said things the wrong way. As already noted the stuff about Jews and Travelers, even if there was a grain of truth, was not politically sensible.
What Braverman said about Asian men, but not those of her background, about sexual abuse of white girls was on another plane. She knows exactly where that leads. Maybe a bit dim, or not focussed on reality, but no defence for age or health.
|
I don't think it dawned on either of them that what they said would be taken the way it was. Abbot isn't anti-semitic, she's spoken out against it before now for Glub's sake.
Neither do I think that Braverman intended her statement to be a criticism of all British Pakistani men. The subject certainly needed to be addressed in the open but boy did she make a £$%^up saying it. I'll go with "a bit dim". She's not Home Secretary material and I suspect she'll now be replaced the first reasonable opportunity that Sunak gets.
Last edited by: Kevin on Wed 3 May 23 at 23:10
|
Bypass any paywall:
12ft.io/
|
>> Paywalled.
Sorry. It just worked for me.
|
news.sky.com/story/dropping-tuition-fees-pledge-will-raise-questions-over-how-fast-starmer-wants-change-12871288
Funnily enough i read an article this morning about SKS and how fast or cautious he's likely to be after dropping the pledge to bin tuition fees.
|
Tory MP Bridgen, who was kicked out of the party over Covid remarks now sits for Laurence Fox's Reclaim.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65543018
|
|
Oh. Perhaps Boris will stand in Raab's place?
|
>> Oh. Perhaps Boris will stand in Raab's place?
No longer a safe seat. I suspect, for all the comment about his kids, that was part of Raab's rationale.
On the other hand Nadine Dorries's perch in Bedfordshire.....
|
>> No longer a safe seat. I suspect, ... that was part of Raab's rationale.
>>
IIRC it certainly is. He is "our" local MP and we have flyers for LDs most weeks
Plus IIRC the boundary changes mean that a big chunk of blue voting constituants will be lost.
I expect LDs will win next time.
|
>> No longer a safe seat. I suspect, for all the comment about his kids, that
>> was part of Raab's rationale.
You're quite right. The Lib Dems are making inroads. LD and I went to a meeting of all the candidates before the 2019 election. The LD candidate came over very well.
|
Suella Braverman missed a trick by not going on the speed awareness course.
The one I went on was quite pleasant and informative - it's always good to have a refresher re the rules.
She could have made a bid thing of how there is no favouritism for the Home Secretary and how she is "one of the people" by attending the course, and reporting first hand on how good it was etc.
Of course she just didn't want to be seen taking her punishment with the great unwashed!
|
Not sure about that Zippy.
Although, as I've said, I think Speeding Courses and the Driver Awareness things are really useful there are some risks with high profile individuals being on with everyone else. Braverman's letter to the PM, which is a lot better than I'd expected, recites this in some detail:
tinyurl.com/3u4fy7vf (pdf on .gov)
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 May 23 at 13:03
|
|
Apparently civil servants have reported that Braverman replaced a loo roll and put it on the wrong way round. Starmer has demanded an immediate full investigation and a public inquiry :)
|
|
Do you really think Braverman handles her own loo roll replacement procedure?
|
That's a good letter, and sets out the reasoning for what happened clearly. And to me, that makes sense.
Obviously it doesn't have to be believed and I'm sure many of her critics, if they were to read the letter, which I doubt they will, would suggest she's now lying too.
|
The whole issue is a testament to poisonous political mischief making - in this case by the Labour Party, although I am quite certain that were the politics reversed there would be no change. It substitutes for rational objective debate.
It is a trivial matter of almost no consequence.
Most in any position of authority will have taken advantage of their position in some way - eg: go home early, extra time taken for lunch, bottle of wine bought on expenses declared as subsistence, days out entertained by customers or suppliers (Ascot, Cricket etc).
I'm sure those in the public sector would protest the "holier than thou" card and properly declared all these things. Having worked in both public and private sectors I doubt this always happens!
|
Oh dear! This isn't going to end well.
It appears that Sir Bernard Jenkin, one of the Tory members of Harman's committee who stuck a knife in BJ by voting to expel him, has been reported to the Privileges Committee.
He's been quite prolific in criticising Boris for breaking lockdown rules but it now appears that he neglected to mention that he held a birthday drinks party in parliament for his wife during lockdown.
BJ has written to Harman asking her to confirm that she asked every member of the committee if they had attended similar events and those checks were done before the inquiry began.
|
It now seems Nadine is not going - at least not right away.
Probably realises that no HoL appointment and no constituency leaves her an inconsequential has been.
|
>>an inconsequential has been.
Not quite, I believe she has some sort of TV programme - anyone ever seen it?
An interesting radio discussion today about her intentions, along the lines of will she or won't she. Constituency residents seem to think she's been a useless MP, not representing them. Suggestions varying from she's biding her time to cause maximum difficulty to the tory partry, to she's staying on, to give Boris an opportunity for a safe seat.
What's this 'bailiff of Northstead Manor' resignation process, I thought they applied for the Chiltern Hundreds?
|
>> What's this 'bailiff of Northstead Manor' resignation process, I thought they applied for the Chiltern
>> Hundreds?
Both are I think Steward and Bailiff of their respective territories and "Offices of Profit Under the Crown"; Northstead is part of Scarborough.
By holding one the MP becomes disqualified and surrenders his seat. AIUI they're usually used in alternation.
|
Too late to add:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/14/nadine-dorries-failure-to-resign-officially-as-mp-frustrates-sunaks-attempt-to-reset-tories
She really is a complete nut job. How on earth did she secure the nomination for a safe seat and how many others are as bad or worse*??
*For clarity Labour and for all I know the LD's and Nationalists etc have their share too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 Jun 23 at 22:51
|
>...how many others are as bad or worse*??
Me, me.... pick me, I know! - 649
|
I heard her on the radio, she seems to have an alternative view on her parliamentary career. Talking of her time as a minister of state in steely terms as though she lead people through the war single handed. The rest was about posh boys in gov, that and her endlessly reminding people where she's from.
Whether they lose her seat i don't know, i think i read its had a Con MP since the 1920s.
|
Another One Bites the Dust - Zero
