Sue Gray accused of hoarding power ( The Times today on her sacking)

[Ramblingnamechanger]

So now women are not only hoarding rights but power too eh?. Can’t be having that , burn the witch.

Have to say i have always been a bit confused about Sue Gray because until her work on Partygate I hadn't really heard of her, and then the next thing (which at the time seemed to me a bit dodgy) she was working for Starmer.

Then there were conflicting stores about her being autocratic and too controlling, and others saying it is all the "young boys" just out of college with little or no ideas apart from student politics, who cant or wont accept having to take orders, discipline from a woman, and an older one at that.

I think Starmer was at fault for appointing her because whether by mistake or not, it just looked like he thought it would ingratiate him with voters to have the woman who investigated Partygate work for him, rather than someone with relevant experience.

According to the .gov web site,

A permanent secretary (her former job) is the most senior civil servant in a department. Each supports the government minister at the head of the department, who is accountable to Parliament for the department’s actions and performance.

The permanent secretary is the accounting officer for their department, reporting to Parliament. They are responsible for the day-to-day running of the department, including the budget.

But if that is what she was (some sort of bean counter), why was she sending round emails commenting on whether or not the UK Government should challenge the Scottish Parliament?

And how did that qualify her for Chief of Staff -

The role is extremely influential. Chiefs of staff advise the prime minister on a wide range of issues, including government policy, party politics and communication strategies. The chief of staff would also normally oversee and manage Downing Street political staff and the work of special advisers across government.

Which just makes me feel Starmer appointed her for media image reasons, ie to have "poached" a Tory permenant secretary who just happened to be the author exposing Tory sleeze.

But I am no longer surprised at what seem to be the superficial "policy" decisions of our new Government. All sound and fury over substance.

(there's a joke going round from twiX along the lines of Labour is like one of those old rock bands who are still performing but apart from the name they dont have anything in common with the original group)

@NeverDropYourMooncup

One Minister involved in the discussions says: ‘It was strange. We were trying to stop a piece of legislation that was dangerous for women and children.
‘And one of the most senior civil servants in the country was attempting to block us. We couldn’t understand why.’“

This could actually be Kemi Badenoch herself, couldn't it? She was Women and Equalities minister. She did speak against gender identity ideology, more than most people in the cabinet. You don't have to like her obviously but of course she was involved.

It maybe of course, that she is someone with not very good interpersonal skills, and whilst as a whole men who are like this are allowed to make a view blunders, get people's backs up etc., a woman like this would not be given the same leeway.

How is Morgan McSweeney qualified?

How is Morgan McSweeney qualified?

Have no idea as I dont know who he is!!

But as it is reported he was the Labour Party campaign manager that seems to be work that more closely resembles the role of Chief of Staff as from .gov web site.

Oh dear, just had a very different result of an internet search, and if this story is true, makes the whole fiasco of SG appointment and current Labour woes even harder not to burst out laughing at!

Before Starmer poached her she was in fact, "Head of Ethics and Propriety"(*). UK politics is getting beyond a farce or Gilbert and Sullivan. Dont know whether to laugh or cry.

(*) ‘And one of the most senior civil servants in the country was attempting to block us. We couldn’t understand why.’

Some inside Government think that question was answered last week, when it was announced that Gray had resigned from the Civil Service to become Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. As another Minister said: ‘Labour in Scotland supported the Gender Recognition Bill. And the last thing Starmer wanted was a big row about it. The fact Sue Gray was preparing to jump ship to him brings her whole stance into doubt.’
Over the past few days, the fury over Gray’s appointment has primarily been led by supporters of Boris Johnson, who claimed her appointment proved the former PM had been the victim of ‘a Left-wing stitch-up’ over Partygate.

It’s true Gray’s ‘independent’ report into the No 10 lockdown breaches has been seemingly tarnished by her move to Labour. But the basic facts of what Johnson did and said during lockdown are a matter of public record. And they are not altered by Gray’s sudden career move.
However, what her dramatic leap across the political divide does expose is the fiction of British Civil Service neutrality, the fickle nature of the way the British political establishment polices itself, and the ongoing hypocrisy and self-righteousness of Starmer.

Gray’s supporters have furiously denied any wrongdoing on her part. ‘In her role as Head of Ethics and Propriety, she acted with enormous diligence, integrity and professionalism, ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-11821695/DAN-HODGES-Sue-Gray-recruitment-annihilates-pretence-Starmer-man-principle.html

I think Starmer was at fault for appointing her because whether by mistake or not, it just looked like he thought it would ingratiate him with voters to have the woman who investigated Partygate work for him, rather than someone with relevant experience.

This voter, and everyone I know, thought it undermined the impartiality of the civil service and raised questions of bias regarding partygate investigation.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the appointment of anyone from the civil service at that level and especially someone whose job involved seeing the kinds of information that job entails - into a political party and in that role in particular - was ever a smart thing to do. It should never have been allowed to happen.

The fact she's gone seems to have very little to do with her sex and making this a feminist issue when we've no idea what else might come out, seems a hostage to fortune.

It was suspect and seems more so now

Starmer continues to show lousy political skills. Machiavelli he certainly isn't. I've said before I don't think he'll be in the job for long, and I see no reason to doubt that view. You'd have thought the one thing they'd want to do would be to make it crystal-clear that they are quite different from those corrupt and sleazy Tories. But, it seems not...

It's always baffled me that he headed up the CPS

Yes I'd already made that point.

The issue is what it says about Starmer.

Is it because he cant think things through, or he thinks being quick and decisive is a vote winner, or he is just out of his depth.

Oh for the confidence of a mediocre man.

I got called away in the middle of responding and posted before I realised you had said the same.

The problem is if he does go then who replaces him?

So true

In my darkest moments I start to think that the real problem is allowing men to be educated.

Too many of them on the basis of "being educated" then suffer from the delusion that they know how to think.

This is particularly true of WMC men who quite honestly are "over educated" and remain buoyed by this experience gained through privilege that they are naturally the "right man for the job".

(Is this where I should say NAM ?)

Agree with pp who say that she should probably not have been appointed in the first place, it was really just the woman hoarding thing that got to me. And if she was supportive of the Scottish bill then I won’t be missing her. But.

If men were not educated it would not mean women would be the right person for the job, it would mean the right person for the job would be an uneducated man.

Time and time again through history what every women studied has been considered fanciful, and it has only been when men studied the same thing that has the subject been considered serious.

I would go further and say not only should she not have been appointed, it should not have been possible to appoint her.

I think in these dark moments I was assuming that in not allowing men to be educated they would automatically not be eligible for any jobs.

Not unlike those times when women weren't educated as it would just be wasted as they would go off and get married.

Still nothing like the post-Referendum governments that preceded it, though.

Personally I am already tired of the tittle-tattle. I realiise it's because the political journalists have little to write about while the massive spending review is going on, and that's happening now because Rishi knew the polls were so dire he didn't bother with planning a budget for next year. He deliberately ran everything into the ground and let the fiscal black hole get worse because he was relaxed about not having to fix it.

This means real policy announcements are further delayed while the spending review is completed, so there's little to write about but Sue Gray, Simon Case and Kier's suits.

It's like Brexit, when there was no plan to analyse and write about so everyone splurged articles on Dominic Cummings and Boris' wallpaper.

Cos revealing government corruption is unnecessary tittle tattle….

NAMMALT

Earlier in this thread someone said, asked was Morgan McSweeney going to be any better. Because I am so bad at names it just didn't click with me.

But he was (is?) the main architect of the strand / faction who worked to de-Corbynise Labour. Partly through the group Labour Together that was funded by big business.

... Having become well-known in Labour circles, McSweeney first came to attention in Westminster for his work with Labour Together, which he used as a vehicle to persuade Labour MPs to stay in the party under Corbyn and, rather than defect or actively agitate, wait for his defeat and then fight to retake control. It was this group that eventually became the power base behind Starmer’s leadership bid.

Starmer was earmarked as a prospect early on. At a Labour Together dinner for journalists shortly after the 2015 election, Reed, Lisa Nandy, McSweeney and others were holding court when it became clear that a special guest was about to be introduced: Starmer. “It felt like he was the heir apparent. He was their best prospect and they had chosen him rather than the other way around,” one source said.

When McSweeney arrived in the leader of the opposition’s office after Starmer’s leadership victory, he was methodical in ensuring that Corbyn supporters were removed from every lever of power inside the party, from the general secretary’s office to the most minor committee. He was determined, allies say, to get rid of any obstacle to the total power of the leader, whether that be opponents on the national executive committee, malcontents in Labour HQ or awkward votes at party conference. Early in his sights was Richard Leonard, the party’s leader in Scotland. Rebecca Long-Bailey was swiftly out of Starmer’s shadow cabinet. And then, Corbyn himself.

McSweeney’s critics on the left say he and Starmer essentially came to positions of power through a mission to deceive Labour members – to ape the popular parts of Corbynism with 10 pledges they never intended to enact and then to wage a factional war. “The ‘political genius’ praise should be tempered by the fact he basically committed fraud to win the Labour Leadership,” one leftwing source said. “Lying is not a genius strategy.” ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/16/morgan-mcsweeney-labour-election-guru-profile

Labour Together
https://www.labourtogether.uk/

Since running Keir Starmer’s leadership campaign, the think tank Labour Together has raised massive amounts of money from businessmen who aim to shape the Labour Party’s leadership and policies to benefit the megarich.
https://jacobin.com/2024/06/labour-together-rich-donors-antidemocratic

Morgan McSweeney’s wife received £10,000 from organisation he used to run
Labour Together has donated £210,000 to members of Sir Keir Starmer’s top team this year – almost four times as much as Lord Alli
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/07/morgan-mcsweeney-wife-labour-donation-imogen-walker/

So what is more strange is why Starmer didn't keep him on in the first place, as those who approve his political direction (including Starmer) would surely want him to continue as the man behind the throne.

So maybe appointing Sue Gray was for Starmer some sort of trophy appointment.

Still now the lads are back in charge I am sure the Labour ship will not be adrift any more.