Sue Gray to be Starmer’s Chief of Staff

maddyone

This continues to rumble on. I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon.

Only because people chose to believe lies. What rules has Starmer, who the Tories client press are attacking, broken. What rules has Sue Gray, who that contemptable Johnson is prepared to slur on no evidence whatsoever, broken.

I wish someone would clarify and reference these rules.

I think you’re probably right Whitewave. I was just commenting on the fact that it’s continues to be in the news.

It will. It really is a non-starter, except by Johnson supporters which are diminishing by the day.

This continues to rumble on. I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon.

Whitewavemark2

“Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle tells MPs not to indulge in "mass lobbying" after (I'm told) 14 requests went in for UQs on Sue Gray appt.

He suggests it was orchestrated campaign, adding: "I was surprised that they all had the same wording and the same length of sentence".

B…..y fools.

So 14 objections - I think Starmer will survive that 😄😄😄😄😄

That’s roughly the same number as the declared members of the ERG - coincidence?

Nightsky posted "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."

But it did not rely on Ms Gray. Here is a quote copied and pasted from the summary of issues to be raised with Mr Johnson (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34228/documents/188328/default/ paragraphs 11 to 16) It is obvious that the committee considered evidence from a large number of sources, and that Johnson was informed in detail of those sources. It is disingenuous of him to claim that the report "relied on Ms Gray"^

Quote -
"We have done all we can to ensure the fairness of our process.. The Committee issued a public call for evidence on 30 June 2022. On 14 July, the Committee wrote to Mr Johnson to request that he supply it with materials in the 12
categories of evidence that we have identified, insofar as such documents were in his possession. The Committee further wrote to Mr Johnson on 21 July, inviting him to
provide an initial submission in writing concerning the allegations set out in the House’s resolution of 21 April and to identify any witnesses that he believed could give relevant
evidence to the Committee. On 12 August, Mr Johnson replied to our letter of 14 July and stated that, in relation to the Committee’s request for documents held in his personal
possession, he held no relevant material. Mr Johnson has not provided us with a written submission as we invited in our letter of 21 July.

12. The Committee wrote to the Government on 14 July, in the same terms as it wrote to Mr Johnson on that date, to request relevant materials in its possession. The Government
responded to our request by providing, on 24 August, documents which were so heavily redacted as to render them devoid of any evidential value. Some material had been
redacted even though it was already in the public domain. Following further engagement between the Committee and Ministers and senior officials, which took some months,
unredacted disclosure of all relevant material was finally provided on 18 November. We have gone to great lengths to protect this information which the Government has
entrusted to Parliament.

13 This included records in the investigation by the Second
Permanent Secretary, Mr Johnson’s official diaries of appointments and visits, relevant emails between officials, and photographs of gatherings in No 10 Downing Street and the
Cabinet Office, all unredacted.

13. Receipt of that material from the Government provided the basis for the Committee to ask for written evidence from 23 witnesses on 24 January 2023, asking them to provide their evidence supported by a statement of truth which is equivalent to an oral statement under oath. The Committee has now received and considered this further written evidence.

14. On 19 January 2023, in response to a direct and specific request by the Committee for all relevant WhatsApp messages, Mr Johnson’s solicitors supplied us with 46 WhatsApp messages between Mr Johnson and five other individuals.

15. Mr Johnson’s solicitors have written to us about the Committee’s procedures.

16. We are making available to Mr Johnson, in addition to a copy of this report: all of the written statements we have received; all the documents and photographs which the Government has provided to us; and the interview notes taken during the Second Permanent Secretary’s investigation. We have made no redactions in any of this material. For the avoidance of doubt, all evidence received by the Committee will be disclosed, and the identities of all witnesses will be disclosed to Mr Johnson. Some witnesses have requested that their identities are not made known to the public at large. The Committee will consider these requests in due course"

“Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle tells MPs not to indulge in "mass lobbying" after (I'm told) 14 requests went in for UQs on Sue Gray appt.

He suggests it was orchestrated campaign, adding: "I was surprised that they all had the same wording and the same length of sentence".

B…..y fools.

So 14 objections - I think Starmer will survive that 😄😄😄😄😄

Dominic Raab moved straight from the Civil Service to a job with the Conservative Party.

Should we demand an investigation?

No, this type of move is very common which is why there is a standard procedure to follow. Sue Gray is following it.

MaizieD

^It was reported last night that her son is an activist for the Labour Party.^

So the sins of the children are to be visited on their fathers mothers?

She had a lot to do with Starmer when he was also a civil servant, Head of the CPS. They were both at the same civil service level. OMG, sinister, or what? 😱

I know that Maizie but it may have been pertinent to wait a while. Still, not my problem.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny Sun 05-Mar-23 22:12:49
Perhaps because so many people who voted for Brexit now bravely admit they were convinced by lies and misinformation. In other words people do think but their thoughts are often based on inaccuracies and by the time the truth is revealed the damage is done. It is interesting that you feel reading positive press releases about Starmer is valid, but reading negative ones and acting on them is mindless.

Do you have any friends in real life Glorianny? I don't think I would like to know someone in real life who twisted what I said as often as you do. I did not go as far as to hint that reading positive press releases about Starmer is valid, but reading negative ones and acting on them is mindless.

Many people are not interested in politics, don't care about them, and never discuss them. Many people will only ever vote one way, whatever happens. The numbers who base their views on inaccuracies will be legion and include those who vote for all parties and hold all views.

There is time for anything to happen. Personally, I feel that Starmer's move, in bringing in someone who knows how parliament works, seems to me to be sensible one. However, that will not determine my vote.

Sue Gray is someone who, until Boris saw her as a way to attack the criticism of himself, was, according to him, almost above reproach. Not everyone will see it like that nor do I need them to. It appears, yet again, you do need people to agree with you.

DaisyAnneI don't want anyone to agree with me. I simply present things as I see them and leave the decision to the reader. It's called discussion. If I didn't post my opinions there wouldn't be a discussion. If you don't want to discuss that's fine, but this constant refrain "You need people to agree with you" is pathetic. I never have.
I do wonder why you feel posting your views is acceptable, but posting mine isn't..
It would be nice if you could keep away from personal comments

If you think about it, this is another “currygate” isn’t it.

Masses of screeching and faux shock that lasted for about 2 weeks, then the bubble burst and they all went quiet. The same thing is going to happen with “Graygate” 😄

Glorianny Sun 05-Mar-23 22:12:49
Perhaps because so many people who voted for Brexit now bravely admit they were convinced by lies and misinformation. In other words people do think but their thoughts are often based on inaccuracies and by the time the truth is revealed the damage is done. It is interesting that you feel reading positive press releases about Starmer is valid, but reading negative ones and acting on them is mindless.

Do you have any friends in real life Glorianny? I don't think I would like to know someone in real life who twisted what I said as often as you do. I did not go as far as to hint that reading positive press releases about Starmer is valid, but reading negative ones and acting on them is mindless.

Many people are not interested in politics, don't care about them, and never discuss them. Many people will only ever vote one way, whatever happens. The numbers who base their views on inaccuracies will be legion and include those who vote for all parties and hold all views.

There is time for anything to happen. Personally, I feel that Starmer's move, in bringing in someone who knows how parliament works, seems to me to be sensible one. However, that will not determine my vote.

Sue Gray is someone who, until Boris saw her as a way to attack the criticism of himself, was, according to him, almost above reproach. Not everyone will see it like that nor do I need them to. It appears, yet again, you do need people to agree with you.

The whole thing is a nonsense.

Anything to divert attention from the chaos unfolding - yet again.

They need a dead cat a week to divert the voter from the weekly shambles.

This week it is the stupidity of the migration issue. Sunak’s latest madness is totally unworkable, and he must know that, but it keeps the pleb’s attention away from the sewerage being spilled out by the Tory party.

It was reported last night that her son is an activist for the Labour Party.

So the sins of the children are to be visited on their fathers mothers?

She had a lot to do with Starmer when he was also a civil servant, Head of the CPS. They were both at the same civil service level. OMG, sinister, or what? 😱

maddyone

I don’t think Sue Gray’s appointment will do Starmer any favours. Too many questions about this appointment. It was reported last night that her son is an activist for the Labour Party. Starmer would have done well to appoint someone without these connections.

Or at least waited for a while.

MaizieD

My God, Wilf!

That really would be taking the piss, wouldn't it...

Well James O’Brien announced it this morning - I’m waiting for him to say that he was mistaken.

I don’t think Sue Gray’s appointment will do Starmer any favours. Too many questions about this appointment. It was reported last night that her son is an activist for the Labour Party. Starmer would have done well to appoint someone without these connections.

My God, Wilf!

That really would be taking the piss, wouldn't it...

Oops! You said Wilf? Seriously? One of the latest Johnson spawn?

Or did you mean Stanley, his grandfather?

No, he's being proposed for a knighthood. Two a penny and not, IMO, particularly important.

There's a new thread on here about it.

Governments have always worked at arms length with the civil service until the recent Tory government.

This is all part and parcel with the attack on democracy.

BTW - is there any truth in the rumour that Wilfred Johnson is being made a Lord?

Any top civil servant asked to undertake a similar investigation may well worry about their future career prospects.

I think that this certainly would apply if we continued to elect governments as corrupt as the present tory government. One would hope that a change of regime would put an end to the demonisation and politicisation of the civil service and revert to the state in which civil servant can speak truth to power without fear of adverse repercussions.

What is happening now is abhorrent.

Today's Times suggests that Sue Gray has left the Civil Service for the job with Starmer because she was blocked from promotion. Could there be a connection between that and her having written a report critical of BoJo and No. 10 partying? Any top civil servant asked to undertake a similar investigation may well worry about their future career prospects.

Where does the arch constitutional wrecker get his ideas from?

So Johnson sees Sue Gray’s appointment as a “constitutional impropriety”

Guess who he is nominating for a peerage?

Dad😄😄😄😄