Sue Gray to be Starmer’s Chief of Staff

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

very well put varian, makes total sense.

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.

LHD yes

I may have got this very wrong but my understanding is that Keir Starmer has appointed Sue Gray to head the Leader of the Opposition's office, no doubt in preparation for possible transition to a prime ministerial role. As such this would be a position funded by Parliament and totally separate from Starmer's position as leader of the Labour Party. Indeed, any hint that if Sue Gray were to be found to be involved in Labour Party matters there would be a major scandal of the same sort that would occur if an MP's constituency office was found to be involved in party matters. Suggesting that Gray has joined the Labour Party in taking up the role is just mischief-making. She's there to give her strategic advice based on long services as a highly-respected civil servant.

Starmer's position of Leader of the Labour Party is more notional than actual, as many such leaders have discovered to their cost. The Labour Party is run by the General Secretary (currently David Evans) with the National Executive Committee.

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.

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

Iam64

I see it as a good appointment. It’s entirely possible as a civil servant to separate personal beliefs from the work. I’m confident Sue Grey did that

I really don't think that she could have spent 40+ years as a civil servant,working with both Labour and tory governments, rising to Second Permanent Secretary and being recognised at least 8 years ago (see the links I posted earlier) as being a force to reckon with, had she been known to have any party preferences.

All this smearing of her, and the civil service, is ridiculous in the extreme.

I see it as a good appointment. It’s entirely possible as a civil servant to separate personal beliefs from the work. I’m confident Sue Grey did that

Urmstongran

“Do you still beat your wife” type of questions? 😁

Read the Privileges Committee report, Ug. I've linked to it on the other thread.

They lay out what they are going to question him about. No wife beating, literal or metaphorical, involved.

“Do you still beat your wife” type of questions? 😁

Whitewavemark2

There is a lot of desperation to make something out of nothing.

It is only a 5 minute wonder.

It will come to nothing.

Exactly. The inquiry is not about politics; it is about the law and the rules. They will continue, and Johnson will have to answer them. If they find he has misled Parliament, they will suggest a suspension. Parliament will vote on it.

If he is innocent, why not answer their questions without all this fuss?

Oreo

Imagine it the other way round.
A senior civil servant has been investigating things that have gone on in the Labour Party and produced a damning report that is high profile and in the news constantly.
Then soon after that becomes chief of staff for the Conservative Party.
It’s just not a good look and it isn’t just me saying this btw.
Also, as Ilovecheese says it could well affect the outcome now of partygate.
As a Labour supporter I wish Keir Starmer had appointed somebody else.

Even the Daily Express is saying that The Gray report did not affect the Privileges Committee’s own inquiry, they have directly gathered evidence, and it’s on the basis of that evidence that they have issued this interim statement.

Labour appointing Sue Gray is a complete red herring as far as the Johnson Inquiry is concerned.

Riiiiiight!😮

Oreo

Imagine it the other way round.
A senior civil servant has been investigating things that have gone on in the Labour Party and produced a damning report that is high profile and in the news constantly.
Then soon after that becomes chief of staff for the Conservative Party.
It’s just not a good look and it isn’t just me saying this btw.
Also, as Ilovecheese says it could well affect the outcome now of partygate.
As a Labour supporter I wish Keir Starmer had appointed somebody else.

I don't want to imagine it "the other way round". There isn't another way round. I'm

All over the country people who have done well in their career chose to go on in something else. This is not unusual. There are rules in place for making it work.

Johnson is trying to deflect. He always tries to deflect. That will not and does not change the opinion of the enquiry. All these investigations are based on fact not what either Ilovecheese or Johnson decide to make up.

Imagine it the other way round.
A senior civil servant has been investigating things that have gone on in the Labour Party and produced a damning report that is high profile and in the news constantly.
Then soon after that becomes chief of staff for the Conservative Party.
It’s just not a good look and it isn’t just me saying this btw.
Also, as Ilovecheese says it could well affect the outcome now of partygate.
As a Labour supporter I wish Keir Starmer had appointed somebody else.

There is a lot of desperation to make something out of nothing.

It is only a 5 minute wonder.

It will come to nothing.

Oreo

Glorianny

Whitewavemark2

Apparently Starmer has factored in a period of “gardening leave” for Gray, because he guessed the Tories would cut up rough and that Sunak would delay her departure.

He hasn't factored in anything. It is a condition imposed on senior civil servants that they leave a period of three months between quitting the service and taking up any new post. Which makes you wonder why on earth did Starmer appoint someone who can't do the ob for three months?
It isn't only Tories who are upset, many senior civil servants feel she has breeched a code which has kept the civil service out of politics. That any civil servant should remain neutral until after they have left the service. They are very annoyed with her.
I just wonder why her? There must be heaps of other well qualified people who could start earlier and don't have quite so much baggage.

That’s just what I’ve been reading about this situation too.
Whatever the truth of it, it’s not a good look really.

In what way isn't it a good look? People retire from their lifetime career and then go and do something else. What in the world is wrong with that?

Oreo

Glorianny

Whitewavemark2

Apparently Starmer has factored in a period of “gardening leave” for Gray, because he guessed the Tories would cut up rough and that Sunak would delay her departure.

He hasn't factored in anything. It is a condition imposed on senior civil servants that they leave a period of three months between quitting the service and taking up any new post. Which makes you wonder why on earth did Starmer appoint someone who can't do the ob for three months?
It isn't only Tories who are upset, many senior civil servants feel she has breeched a code which has kept the civil service out of politics. That any civil servant should remain neutral until after they have left the service. They are very annoyed with her.
I just wonder why her? There must be heaps of other well qualified people who could start earlier and don't have quite so much baggage.

That’s just what I’ve been reading about this situation too.
Whatever the truth of it, it’s not a good look really.

It’s absolutely the norm for managerial staff in all sectors to have to serve three months notice, or if there’s a conflict of interest between the old role and the new to have to take three months gardening leave between roles. You don’t get high calibre people who are available to start a new role with less than three months lead time unless they are currently unemployed.

ILovecheese yeah, I fear you could well be right.

Glorianny

Whitewavemark2

Apparently Starmer has factored in a period of “gardening leave” for Gray, because he guessed the Tories would cut up rough and that Sunak would delay her departure.

He hasn't factored in anything. It is a condition imposed on senior civil servants that they leave a period of three months between quitting the service and taking up any new post. Which makes you wonder why on earth did Starmer appoint someone who can't do the ob for three months?
It isn't only Tories who are upset, many senior civil servants feel she has breeched a code which has kept the civil service out of politics. That any civil servant should remain neutral until after they have left the service. They are very annoyed with her.
I just wonder why her? There must be heaps of other well qualified people who could start earlier and don't have quite so much baggage.

That’s just what I’ve been reading about this situation too.
Whatever the truth of it, it’s not a good look really.