Sue Gray to be Starmer’s Chief of Staff

varian

I don't know what Sue Gray's private views have been during her time in the civil service. She has scrupulously remained impartial, serving governments of different parties.

However it is not too hard to imagine that even if she had, in the privacy of the voting booth, always in the past voted Conservative, her first hand knowledge of the chaotic, corrupt and totally incompetent Conservative governments we have endured since 2015, could very easily have persuaded her that it was time to start supporting the Labour Party.

My thoughts. She has behaved impeccably, but had eyes and ears.

... and used them. Well done. Bravo.

Who knows what her political views were when in the post as we should not.
A bad move for either party I would think. It questions her impartiality however you look at it.
It gives Johnston leverage so could harm the Labour-run for government .
It might also question Starmers choice , choosing someone who appeared to be impartial but has now shown her party affiliation. Was there no one else he could have chosen?

The Tories are talking this up for all it's worth in an attempt to help the Buffoon but what they are saying is mostly twaddle. The Privileges Committee have made clear they are not relying on Sue Gray's report (they have other damning evidence), her report was 18 months ago - well before any Starmer job offer, she did not initiate her work leading to her report - she was asked to do it with BoJo's approval after Case had to recuse himself. Rees-Mogg's claims of a Left wing stitch up are not supported by the above points. Political attacks on civil servants have unfortunately become all to common and are imho a cheap way of diverting attention from Ministerial actions. In my experience civil servants leave their private political opinions at the door just as the Committee states its Party politicians leave theirs in the same place.

Yammy

Who knows what her political views were when in the post as we should not.
A bad move for either party I would think. It questions her impartiality however you look at it.
It gives Johnston leverage so could harm the Labour-run for government .
It might also question Starmers choice , choosing someone who appeared to be impartial but has now shown her party affiliation. Was there no one else he could have chosen?

It's not something new Yammy. Blair had Jeremy Harwood; Cameron had Louise Casey.

It's seen as odd because we have had many years of a government that is all about politics and show, not about running the country. This shower did the opposite, replacing senior civil servants with toadies and now expect other parties to behave as they do. We have had PMs who will only have people who agree with them around them. As we have seen with Kings in history, that way lies madness.

This is not how Starmer works. He does not need another "yes" person. People serious about getting things done employ a knowledgeable and competent administrator. Hiring such a person should be a refreshing change and follows in the tradition of those who have been out of power bringing in someone who knows the workings of the government.

Johnson has no leverage; he will become a pariah. In days gone by, the Conservatives would have sent someone in a grey suit to visit him and tell him his time in UK politics is over, or worse. The "Gray" has come from a different direction with a distinctly different message. It tells the whole Conservative party that the days of playing politics and culture wars are over at cost to the country and its citizens are over; we are going back to actually achieving something.

The extreme wailing from the Tory camp is because Starmer has scored an excellent goal. The current government, with few exceptions, are extremely poor losers. The MPs fighting for their own place in history, not the countries, have sunk to the worst sort of behaviour in order not to lose or to convince others that losing was actually winning. They are a nasty nest of very unpleasant predatory insects. It is time they were eradicated.

There's always one.

the days of playing politics and culture wars are over at cost to the country and its citizens are over; we are going back to actually achieving something.

Why her. Because she knows where all the bodies are buried and I mean allllllll the bodies.

MerylStreep

Why her. Because she knows where all the bodies are buried and I mean allllllll the bodies.

We'll have to wait and see on that one.
She shouldn't use the knowledge gained when she was meant to be impartial to aid either party.

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

Visgir1

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

The Civil Service already has rules. This really isn't something to get your knickers in a twist about.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/jobs-after-government-rules-ex-ministers-and-civil-servants.

They will have been used when both Cameron and Blair made similar appointments.

The Sheeple are just making a lot of noise to deflect from Boris Johnson. I do notice that the quieter Conservatives in parliament are saying they have had enough of attacks on Gray - lauded by those in government when it suited them - and support for Johnson.

Visgir1

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

Well said Visgirl.

Yammy

Visgir1

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

Well said Visgirl.

I suppose ignorance can be bliss.

THEY ALREADY HAVE RULES. THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE.

I don’t like it as I think it could impinge on civil servants impartiality. Having said that I am not suggesting her report was not correct. I see they have seized a laptop and papers from her home hoping to discredit her and her report, which seems rather desperate. She will not be able to take up her new role for one or two years as the usual procedure. I suspect Starmer has seized the opportunity to cock a snook at the Tories.

DaisyAnne

Whitewavemark2

Ilovecheese

Yes, it is ridiculous, but it will be effective, as so many smear campaigns are if people want to believe them.

No it won’t.

People are not that daft.

A few are. Some are already delighting in it on here. Hopefully they will be the sort who blow with the wind because you are right, most people are not that daft and it will soon be apparent.

DaisyAnne who exactly is delighting in it? I haven’t seen any let alone a few.
Some of us are wishing Keir Starmer had appointed somebody else so that the LP are not shall we say tarnished by people thinking this is a strange appointment and hoping it won’t affect the outcome of investigations into ‘did Boris lie to MP’s’. Which I bet he did btw.

Visgir1

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

Yeah, there’s that as well of course.

25Avalon

I don’t like it as I think it could impinge on civil servants impartiality. Having said that I am not suggesting her report was not correct. I see they have seized a laptop and papers from her home hoping to discredit her and her report, which seems rather desperate. She will not be able to take up her new role for one or two years as the usual procedure. I suspect Starmer has seized the opportunity to cock a snook at the Tories.

The usual procedure is NOT one or two years. As in any organisation, it is usually three months, sometimes six. The same is true for civil servants.

You cannot be stopped from making a move to another job, thus depriving you of your living, unless the employer can prove your move would be detrimental to their business/organisation and then there is a limit to how long they can do that for. Just because someone on here thinks it could be detrimental to the Conservatives does not mean that comes close to being legally provable that it would be detrimental to the government.

It could, in exceptional circumstances, be one or two years. That would have to be proved legally too not just the Conservatives having a hissy fit. With the references the Tories gave Ms Gray, when they wanted her to report on Party Gate I think they may have problems with that.

I understood this was different from ordinary gardening leave and she could be completely blocked from leaving at all on Sunak’s say so but this has never been done in the past. It has happened to others who have been blocked for 12 months. I would go and look it up but I have to get lunch.

DaisyAnne

Yammy

Visgir1

Think the Civil Service needs to investigate if this compromise the reputation of the impartiality and trust of the service, regardless who's in Government.

Well said Visgirl.

I suppose ignorance can be bliss.

THEY ALREADY HAVE RULES. THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE.

Well the rules haven't worked have they and need to be reviewed and revised.

They haven't got that far. She has been offered the job and hopes to take it up. What hasn't worked?

The only person who has broken the rules to my knowledge is Boris Johnson who, on leaving the Foreign Office did not even bother to consult the Independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA)* as he should have done.

*This body is the same one for ex-Ministers and senior civil servants. Junior civil servants are, of course, being encouraged to leave, rejoining through an outside company.

The rules you said they already had or there wouldn't be all this fuss One would hope she would be impartial and not use the knowledge gained while she was supposed to be under impartiality rules. Would she have been chosen as chair if her political leanings had been known?
As I said in my first post by accepting she has caused problems for both parties.

Sorry Yammy. I don't understand your post.

DaisyAnne

Sorry Yammy. I don't understand your post.

Me neither...

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

Sorry Yammy. I don't understand your post.

Me neither...

and I don't understand neither of you not understanding my post. I think neither of you wants to understand it. The Acoba committee of the Civil service is already saying the appointment needs looking into.

The Acoba committee of the Civil service is already saying the appointment needs looking into.

But that is standard practice, Yammy. It always happens with senior staff, whatever sort of job they're going to. There's nothing sinister about it.

(Except when Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary and took a lucrative post with the Daily Telegraph, bypassing ACOBA. But then, Johnson doesn't do rules, does he?)