Sue Gray to be Starmer’s Chief of Staff

Sue Gray will have had to act impartially while she was working - just like all civil servants. Thus she would have had to act impartially when she produced her report into what was going on at No.10.

Sue Gray worked for many years in the Propriety and Ethics section of the Cabinet Office, making her an ideal candidate for the job of looking into what went on at No.10 and whether the parties breached Covid rules.

Civil servants do not have to act "impartially" in their private lives, so if Sue Gray has left the civil service and wishes to take up a new post her impartiality is no longer relevant unless the Labour Party make that a condition of her employment.

The Acoba Committee - that’s the one Maisie D I had in mind. Sue Gray’s employer is not the Government but the Civil Service. If she can’t take up the appointment immediately that will take us to the next election (probably!)

According to what I've read it could be anything from 3 months to 2 years.
Most commentators seem to think it'll be 6 or 12 months.

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?

Not a clever move on his part. Surely he must have known that choosing SG would be very controversial. He has also said that he knew her socially, does that mean they’re friends.

Johnson said that it was “concerning “ that the enquiry into whether he lied to MPs relied on evidence from Ms Gray’s findings because she will now be working for Labour.

This is simply not a runner. Try as the likes of Mogg, Johnson and the Daily Mail do, they will not convince the vast majority (75%) of the population of Johnson’s innocence.

The objection to Gray’s appointment is all about trying to get Johnson off.

Nightsky2

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?

Not a clever move on his part. Surely he must have known that choosing SG would be very controversial. He has also said that he knew her socially, does that mean they’re friends.

Johnson said that it was “concerning “ that the enquiry into whether he lied to MPs relied on evidence from Ms Gray’s findings because she will now be working for Labour.

I think you may find people - perhaps not those you read though - saying this is a genius move. Starmer is preparing for government, ensuring that his team know how it works so they can get things done from Day 1.

I really doubt that, should Labour win, he will even mention Johnson or his antics ever again.

Johnson said that it was “concerning “ that the enquiry into whether he lied to MPs relied on evidence from Ms Gray’s findings because she will now be working for Labour.

If you read the interim report of the committee you will find that they make it clear that they have not relied on Sue Gray's report. There are copious footnotes which detail the evidence they have taken.

Who is going to believe liar Johnson, anyway?

The interim report “totally vindicates him” don’t you know.

She should have been impartial politically when she chaired the committee. It now turns out her son is a member of the Irish Labour party, not that we all have the same political views as our children.
It still points to the fact she should not have been asked by Starmer and neither should she have agreed until everything was out in the open.
She could have damaged either party what ever your political affiliations.

She should have been impartial politically when she chaired the committee.

If by 'she' you mean Sue Gray, she didn't chair any committee.

You are also slandering her if you are calling her impartiality into question. She is a top ranking civil servant who has served governments and ministers of all political affiliations. She wouldn't have reached the position she achieved had she shown any hint of partiality.

Her son's party affiliation has no relevance. No-one with any sense controls their offspring's political choices.

There is absolutely no reason at all why Starmer should not have appointed her; there are plenty of precedents.

Come on now MaizieD. Starmer should not have appointed her because by doing so he has stolen a march on the Tories. That isn’t allowed under any circumstances.

What a vindictive lot the Tories are.

I guess they are s..t scared that Gray knows too many skeletons of which there are undoubtedly thousands - judging by what has been in the news this week.

Behaved like a proper government and none of this would matter.

Funny isn't it Starmer probably upset the very voters he is currently pursuing- the doubtful Tory. They are now probably thinking Johnson was stitched up and they should stay faithful.

Glorianny

Funny isn't it Starmer probably upset the very voters he is currently pursuing- the doubtful Tory. They are now probably thinking Johnson was stitched up and they should stay faithful.

Just how many Tories do you think support Johnson?

Do you want me to quote polls.

His support is absolutely at rock bottom from Tories.

Whitewavemark2

Glorianny

Funny isn't it Starmer probably upset the very voters he is currently pursuing- the doubtful Tory. They are now probably thinking Johnson was stitched up and they should stay faithful.

Just how many Tories do you think support Johnson?

Do you want me to quote polls.

His support is absolutely at rock bottom from Tories.

I think that's the funny thing. If asked would you vote for him people say "No". But talk to people and they have a sort of grudging respect for him. So I don't think they will return to voting. for him, they may well return to voting for the Tory party.

I do not like Boris - but I’m afraid Yammy is right. A foolish choice that may give Boris an escape clause.

Sueki44

I do not like Boris - but I’m afraid Yammy is right. A foolish choice that may give Boris an escape clause.

It won’t. The Privileges Committee have gathered their own evidence, their decision making process is in no way reliant on Sue Gray's Inquiry. Johnson is the fish on the hook now, and he isn’t going to break free,

Casdon

Sueki44

I do not like Boris - but I’m afraid Yammy is right. A foolish choice that may give Boris an escape clause.

It won’t. The Privileges Committee have gathered their own evidence, their decision making process is in no way reliant on Sue Gray's Inquiry. Johnson is the fish on the hook now, and he isn’t going to break free,

Yes

Glorianny

Funny isn't it Starmer probably upset the very voters he is currently pursuing- the doubtful Tory. They are now probably thinking Johnson was stitched up and they should stay faithful.

So people think the person Johnson employed to carry out the Party Gate report, lauding her character as he did so, stitched him up? What would that make Johnson if it were true? What would it make him if it wasn't?

What does that make the police, who carried out a separate investigation? Are you suggesting the fines - over 100 of them - were Sue Gray's fault, Starmer's fault, or could they have been the fault of those who were fined?

What does that make the Commons Privileges Committee, who have decided there is enough evidence for them to continue the investigation on the question as to whether Johnson deliberately lied to Parliament? Are they all (with a majority of Conservatives) colluding to punish an innocent man or trying to find justice?

It seems that to you, everyone's out of step except your Boris. I think that put's you on a par with the deluded mother of "Jimmy" from the WW1 song.

Sueki44

I do not like Boris - but I’m afraid Yammy is right. A foolish choice that may give Boris an escape clause.

How could it possibly give Johnson an escape clause? Escape from what?

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

Funny isn't it Starmer probably upset the very voters he is currently pursuing- the doubtful Tory. They are now probably thinking Johnson was stitched up and they should stay faithful.

So people think the person Johnson employed to carry out the Party Gate report, lauding her character as he did so, stitched him up? What would that make Johnson if it were true? What would it make him if it wasn't?

What does that make the police, who carried out a separate investigation? Are you suggesting the fines - over 100 of them - were Sue Gray's fault, Starmer's fault, or could they have been the fault of those who were fined?

What does that make the Commons Privileges Committee, who have decided there is enough evidence for them to continue the investigation on the question as to whether Johnson deliberately lied to Parliament? Are they all (with a majority of Conservatives) colluding to punish an innocent man or trying to find justice?

It seems that to you, everyone's out of step except your Boris. I think that put's you on a par with the deluded mother of "Jimmy" from the WW1 song.

Your problem DaisyAnne is you imagine voters thoroughly research things before drawing conclusions, many of them don't. Many will simply read what is said by people like JRM and draw their conclusions from that.
He isn't my Boris by the way I have always loathed the man, however I acknowledge he has a certain ability to charm and I listen to what is being said about him .
There is also a body of opinion that says civil servants are sneaky lying individuals and this provides ammunition for that.

Who on earth says that civil servants are sneaky lying individuals😄😄😄. You must move in strange circles.

That comment is on par with one by a poster that suggested that officers read The Telegraph and foot soldiers ( clerks I assume) read The Daily Mail.

Honestly this site gives me a huge amount of merriment at times.

Whitewavemark2

Who on earth says that civil servants are sneaky lying individuals😄😄😄. You must move in strange circles.

That comment is on par with one by a poster that suggested that officers read The Telegraph and foot soldiers ( clerks I assume) read The Daily Mail.

Honestly this site gives me a huge amount of merriment at times.

Some might term them devious Whitemark2 but the perception is much the same the language is slightly more basic. It's a perception cultivated by various works of fiction like "Yes minister" where Sir Humphrey often explains how a subject is avoided or circumvented (sneaky) and language is used which covers up actualities (lying).
The perception that ministers are largely incompetent resulted from that programme as well.

Blimey

Whitewavemark2

Blimey

😂😂😂