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

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]

Originally Posted by Maggy

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





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





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

Sometimes words aren't needed.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

Originally Posted by jfman

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]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Maggy

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

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

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]

Originally Posted by Maggy

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Originally Posted by Itshim

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.