Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Sue Gray (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711758)

Itshim 02-03-2023 19:42
Sue Gray
 
So she now works for labour !!! Says it all:rolleyes:

peanut 02-03-2023 20:13
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147296)
So she now works for labour !!! Says it all:rolleyes:
Rats and sinking ships and all that....

Damien 02-03-2023 21:05
Re: Sue Gray
 
Well, she was a civil servant so wasn't really going down with the ship either way.

People will try to spin it as vindication for Johnson but Grey not only wasn't working for Labour at the time but was appointed by the Government themselves.

She was appointed because they needed somebody widely respected after their initial appointment was also mixed up in Partygate. I don't think it's a surprise that a party which is looking to be in Government wants to recruit someone respected and senior that's worked in Government.

denphone 02-03-2023 21:11
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147296)
So she now works for labour !!! Says it all:rolleyes:
Civil servants are politically neutral and independent of government.

Mr K 02-03-2023 21:18
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36147304)
Civil servants are politically neutral and independent of government.
They can of course resign and become political. Just like David Frost did for the Tories....

Pierre 03-03-2023 11:54
Re: Sue Gray
 
I don't think she was a Labour shill or anything like that, but it is an extremely silly move by Starmer. Just bad optics.

1andrew1 03-03-2023 11:57
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36147336)
I don't think she was a Labour shill or anything like that, but it is an extremely silly move by Starmer. Just bad optics.
I think it's a good one. He's got an experienced professional on board.

denphone 03-03-2023 12:11
Re: Sue Gray
 
Did not Jonathan Powell, who left a senior job at the Foreign Office to become Tony Blair’s chief of staff.

Damien 03-03-2023 12:53
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36147336)
I don't think she was a Labour shill or anything like that, but it is an extremely silly move by Starmer. Just bad optics.
I am guessing he has decided it's worth the hit for him to have her on board. If you think there are so few people on the front bench with experience in Government, they're all pretty lightweight, that having someone senior who does is worthwhile.

Also, the Tories blabbing on about Partygate again probably isn't a smart move on their part either.

Itshim 03-03-2023 12:56
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36147304)
Civil servants are politically neutral and independent of government.
If you believe that guess you will believe anything :shocked:

denphone 03-03-2023 13:03
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147350)
If you believe that guess you will believe anything :shocked:
And you believe too many conspiracy theories..

Paul 03-03-2023 14:19
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147296)
So she now works for labour !!! Says it all:rolleyes:
I suppose it might, if I had any clue who "Sue Gray" was. :sleep:

Itshim 03-03-2023 18:54
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36147352)
And you believe too many conspiracy theories..
History shows that you should not trust anything that the press , MPs , or anyone else say. And I very much include conspiracy theories. , Fact check from many sources. More or less on bbc4 shows that everything should not be taken at face value:erm: for a example

papa smurf 03-03-2023 19:13
Re: Sue Gray
 
bent as a nine bob note

Maggy 03-03-2023 23:12
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36147388)
bent as a nine bob note
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147296)
So she now works for labour !!! Says it all:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36147301)
Rats and sinking ships and all that....
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147350)
If you believe that guess you will believe anything :shocked:
:rolleyes:

Hugh 03-03-2023 23:14
Re: Sue Gray
 
From that left-wing Starmer-supporting tree-hugging woke publication, the Daily Express…

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...chief-of-staff

Quote:
Forget the Boris conspiracy! The real inside story of how Starmer won over Sue Gray

According to well-placed sources, the tale began with Rishi Sunak’s reshuffle on February 7 when, among other moves, he promoted Kemi Badenoch by increasing her international trade portfolio to include business.

Ms Badenoch is understood to have immediately asked for Ms Gray to be her department’s top civil servant – the Permanent Secretary – having worked with her before in the levelling up and communities department.

A Tory MP in the know explained: “Michael Gove, who rates Sue very highly, had brought her to the levelling up department and Kemi had been impressed.

“When Kemi got a new department, Michael encouraged her to ask for Sue as her permanent secretary and she was only too keen to do so.”

But it appears that the most senior civil servant in the Government Cabinet Secretary Simon Case had other plans.

According to sources he is alleged to have got involved in the recruitment process and vetoed Ms Gray’s candidacy on a technicality because she was “not of the right grade to be promoted to permanent secretary".

The impact of this was devastating.

One source noted: “It in effect put an end to her career chances because it meant she would never be promoted to a permanent secretary job and never have a chance to become Cabinet Secretary. A lot of ministers wanted her to land the top job one day.”

It is understood she was “upset and frustrated” and soon after Starmer approached her.

A source said: “Everybody knew what had happened and Starmer must have got to hear about it too so he swooped. It’s actually a masterstroke by him.”

A Conservative former minister was furious with Sunak.

"The Prime Minister should have intervened and overruled Case. This is a terrible blunder on his part and none of it would have happened if Kemi had been allowed to have her way."

daveeb 03-03-2023 23:23
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36147404)
:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------



:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------



:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------



:rolleyes:
:D Sometimes words aren't needed.

jfman 04-03-2023 06:26
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36147336)
I don't think she was a Labour shill or anything like that, but it is an extremely silly move by Starmer. Just bad optics.
I’m with Pierre, hands his opponents an open goal.

It’s also damaging to the Civil Service. The ensuring the perception of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. The idea of a Civil Servant conducting a review into the behaviour of Ministers, SpAds, officials then bunking off to the opposition what could be mere months before a general election is an atrocious look.

If the next Labour government finds itself behind in the polls three years in, a couple of scandals here and there, and Starmer’s cabinet look round the rooms they are in at Whitehall and decide they can’t trust anyone it’s a situation he fostered.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36147408)
From that left-wing Starmer-supporting tree-hugging woke publication, the Daily Express…

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...chief-of-staff
The quote “not of the right grade to be promoted to permanent secretary” is odd since she was the grade directly below permanent secretary. It also seems an odd career move for someone to go from wanting Simon Case’s current job to wanting Dominic Cummings old one.

I politely suggest a Labour source on damage control.

Damien 04-03-2023 08:50
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36147417)
I’m with Pierre, hands his opponents an open goal.

It’s also damaging to the Civil Service. The ensuring the perception of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. The idea of a Civil Servant conducting a review into the behaviour of Ministers, SpAds, officials then bunking off to the opposition what could be mere months before a general election is an atrocious look.

If the next Labour government finds itself behind in the polls three years in, a couple of scandals here and there, and Starmer’s cabinet look round the rooms they are in at Whitehall and decide they can’t trust anyone it’s a situation he fostered.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 ----------



The quote “not of the right grade to be promoted to permanent secretary” is odd since she was the grade directly below permanent secretary. It also seems an odd career move for someone to go from wanting Simon Case’s current job to wanting Dominic Cummings old one.

I politely suggest a Labour source on damage control.
They're not on damage control, no one really cares. Even The Mail has given up pushing after one day.

jfman 04-03-2023 09:46
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36147421)
They're not on damage control, no one really cares. Even The Mail has given up pushing after one day.
Probably saving it for the election campaign. I know I would.

Damien 04-03-2023 10:12
Re: Sue Gray
 
Do they want to bring up that he hired a former civil servant who investigated PartyGate on a general election campaign? Not sure that will cut through and why bring up Partygate again during an election?

Ultimately people don't care about civil servants being hired. It's all inside baseball.

jfman 04-03-2023 10:24
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36147423)
Do they want to bring up that he hired a former civil servant who investigated PartyGate on a general election campaign? Not sure that will cut through and why bring up Partygate again during an election?

Ultimately people don't care about civil servants being hired. It's all inside baseball.
That works both ways, if Labour go to bring up Partygate (and you’ll find dozens of posts from me slating the Tories for that) the obvious defence is now “ah yes, that report written by the first/second/third highest paid employee of the Labour Party”.

What’s ‘inside baseball’ today suddenly fails the sniff test down the pub.

Damien 04-03-2023 12:32
Re: Sue Gray
 
Labour won't bring up Partygate in the election. They'll go on the cost of living, the NHS and crime.

No one down the pub is going to be talking about Sue Gray instead.

Maggy 04-03-2023 18:14
Re: Sue Gray
 
BTW What job do any of you think she should have applied for?What job would have been suitable based on her experience and background in the civil service.Not everyone working in the civil service in parliament necessarily works for a political party but for an employer who may or may not have the same political allegiance.It is possible to work for someone who has differing political interests to oneself.

papa smurf 04-03-2023 18:19
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36147456)
BTW What job do any of you think she should have applied for?What job would have been suitable based on her experience and background in the civil service.Not everyone working in the civil service in parliament necessarily works for a political party but for an employer who may or may not have the same political allegiance.It is possible to work for someone who has differing political interests to oneself.
A job spying for the kremlin

Hugh 04-03-2023 18:26
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36147458)
A job spying for the kremlin
Surely that’s Johnson’s job, seeing he likes spending time at ex-KGB oligarch’s Italian villas without his Special Branch bodyguards?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62068421

Quote:
Boris Johnson has told MPs he met Russian oligarch and ex-KGB officer Alexander Lebedev without officials present.

"I have certainly met him without officials," he said. "I met him on a very few occasions."

And when asked if he met the Russian billionaire and former Evening Standard owner while foreign secretary in Italy in 2018, he said he had.

Mr Johnson made Mr Lebedev's son Evgeny a member of the House of Lords.

Controversy surrounds that appointment, since it was alleged - first in a Tortoise Media podcast and then in the Sunday Times - that the peerage was granted despite a warning from the security services that it posed a national security risk.

jfman 04-03-2023 18:51
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36147456)
BTW What job do any of you think she should have applied for?What job would have been suitable based on her experience and background in the civil service.Not everyone working in the civil service in parliament necessarily works for a political party but for an employer who may or may not have the same political allegiance.It is possible to work for someone who has differing political interests to oneself.
She can apply for any job she likes - or none as a mandarin hanging around the Civil Service at the Director General grade is in line for a not insubstantial pension in any case.

If Starmer wants to go ahead and give up an easy attack line to recruit someone who hasn’t actually held the top job at any Department that’s his prerogative. Just as it’s others whether or not they offer my opinion that it’s a mistake.

Elections are rarely won or lost because the masses congregate around a single thing and there’s undoubtedly political risk with this appointment. Too many mistakes and Starmer might find himself learning auf weidersehen, pet in Polish himself.

Itshim 05-03-2023 12:42
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36147461)
She can apply for any job she likes - or none as a mandarin hanging around the Civil Service at the Director General grade is in line for a not insubstantial pension in any case.

If Starmer wants to go ahead and give up an easy attack line to recruit someone who hasn’t actually held the top job at any Department that’s his prerogative. Just as it’s others whether or not they offer my opinion that it’s a mistake.

Elections are rarely won or lost because the masses congregate around a single thing and there’s undoubtedly political risk with this appointment. Too many mistakes and Starmer might find himself learning auf weidersehen, pet in Polish himself.
Or she could just retire , what ever happens any report she had put out is now open to speculation as to why she choose to angle her report the way she did.:erm:

Hugh 05-03-2023 12:54
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147495)
Or she could just retire , what ever happens any report she had put out is now open to speculation as to why she choose to angle her report the way she did.:erm:
She wasn’t the one who raised 126 FPNs - that was the Met from their own independent investigation; or are they open to speculation as well?

Itshim 05-03-2023 20:06
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36147496)
She wasn’t the one who raised 126 FPNs - that was the Met from their own independent investigation; or are they open to speculation as well?
You trust the met! Given their track record , l find it hard to trust them to correctly issue a parking ticket.

Hugh 05-03-2023 21:23
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147514)
You trust the met! Given their track record , l find it hard to trust them to correctly issue a parking ticket.
You appear to have missed the point - there were two separate investigations by two separate groups, and both found laws had been broken.

TheDaddy 05-03-2023 23:33
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36147519)
You appear to have missed the point - there were two separate investigations by two separate groups, and both found laws had been broken.
Plus Gove and smugg were queueing up to praise her brilliance and integrity when the heat was on them, doesn't that matter now, pretty daft of them to be reminding people of what they were getting up to whilst us plebs couldn't visit people in hospital for the last time or go to funerals as well imo

1andrew1 05-03-2023 23:56
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36147529)
Plus Gove and smugg were queueing up to praise her brilliance and integrity when the heat was on them, doesn't that matter now, pretty daft of them to be reminding people of what they were getting up to whilst us plebs couldn't visit people in hospital for the last time or go to funerals as well imo
This was the week when all should have gone well for the Conservatives with two successes - the Northern Ireland Brexit deal at the start of the week and ambulance strike called off at the end.

Instead the ghost of Partygate has returned to haunt them through Hancock's texts (why share them with a lockdown sceptic whose partner is leader of a competing political party, Reform UK?) and criticising Labour's appointment of Sue Gray.

Both easily avoidable mistakes.

Sephiroth 06-03-2023 22:12
Re: Sue Gray
 
Starmer completely swerved the question put to him 8x by Ferrai on LBC this morning: "When did you first speak to Sue Gray about being his chief of staff?" - word to that effect.

So clearly, he's hiding something - something he doesn't want us to know.

Whilst there is a whiffy smell here, it doesn't taint Gray's findings on that the lying "no North Sea border", Boris toad.

Hugh 06-03-2023 22:54
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36147582)
Starmer completely swerved the question put to him 8x by Ferrai on LBC this morning: "When did you first speak to Sue Gray about being his chief of staff?" - word to that effect.

So clearly, he's hiding something - something he doesn't want us to know.

Whilst there is a whiffy smell here, it doesn't taint Gray's findings on that the lying "no North Sea border", Boris toad.
However, he did state

Quote:
"I had absolutely no contact with Sue Gray during the preparation of her report when she was writing or anything like that, so the whole suggestion is a complete and utter nonsense."

Sephiroth 06-03-2023 23:04
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36147586)
However, he did state
Quote:
"I had absolutely no contact with Sue Gray during the preparation of her report when she was writing or anything like that, so the whole suggestion is a complete and utter nonsense."
What's that got to do with anything? Nobody but the liar Boris (and his stupid mates) are casting doubt on Gray's conclusions. The question is:
When did Starmer ask the senior civil servant to become a Labour Party official?

Damien 06-03-2023 23:09
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36147587)
What's that got to do with anything? Nobody but the liar Boris (and his stupid mates) are casting doubt on Gray's conclusions. The question is:
When did Starmer ask the senior civil servant to become a Labour Party official?
I think it might be an issue that if it was a while ago then she may have had to ask for permission from the civil service to have the contact. He has said she can reveal when contact was made if she wants.

Sephiroth 06-03-2023 23:35
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36147588)
I think it might be an issue that if it was a while ago then she may have had to ask for permission from the civil service to have the contact. He has said she can reveal when contact was made if she wants.
Agreed - but it would have been a two way conversation and if you'd have been able to hear the LBC programme, you'd have instantly identified the politicians' swerve.

Itshim 07-03-2023 19:57
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36147519)
You appear to have missed the point - there were two separate investigations by two separate groups, and both found laws had been broken.
My point is that the Met or for that matter all poilce force's can no longer be trusted , how ever history suggests that they are always suspect, Cardiff 3 ? Birmingham 6 , recent sex crimes by police in London , 5 die in Cardiff car "found " many hours later . I could go on:erm:

denphone 07-03-2023 20:21
Re: Sue Gray
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36147622)
My point is that the Met or for that matter all poilce force's can no longer be trusted , how ever history suggests that they are always suspect, Cardiff 3 ? Birmingham 6 , recent sex crimes by police in London , 5 die in Cardiff car "found " many hours later . I could go on:erm:
Generalising that all police forces are the same is a bit like that saying all politicians are of the same ilk.

Paul 07-03-2023 20:47
Re: Sue Gray
 
I'm not sure how sex crimes by the police is the same as not finding a car for two days.

(Btw, many other cars passed by the mantioned missing car without noticing it either).


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum