Printable View
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64824776
This doesn't feel like good optics for Labour.
The timing could hardly have been worse considering the attention that Hancock's leaked messages are getting in the press, media etc.
Bit of an own goal, perhaps?
Some of the Starmer cheerleaders in the liberal media were pushing this as a major coup earlier today.
I agree with your suggestion it is an own goal.
It allows Johnson and his cabal to present the Gray investigation as a party political stitch up.
It wasn't. But why let him/them off the hook?
It was very clever of Starmer to force Johnson to have loads of illegal parties, then force Johnson to appoint Sue Gray to investigate them, then force The Met to pause the investigation while they handed out 126 fines, then force the Tory Party to oust Johnson.
Starmer is a criminal mastermind.
Couple of things, first if Sue Gray was a Labour Party plant, why did the “Abba party” get ignored in her report? Second, it wasn’t Partygate that finished Johnson off, it was the spectacle of Ministers appearing on television defending him after the Chris Pincher scandal only for what they were saying to be shown to be lies the following day after Johnson changed his story - it wasn’t Sue Gray who forced Johnson out.
So, although Starmer has done plenty of things to make me hold my nose when it comes to voting for his party (getting the Tories out is the most important thing to me), I don’t see anything wrong here - Sue Gray’s report was published nine months ago, not nine days.
And not forgetting, Lord Frost went from impartial civil servant to conservative Lord without any right wing eyebrows being raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
And we were told by every government minister that Sue Gray was the utmost professional with unmatched integrity.
Look at this whopper of a tweet for an example of total hypocrisy https://twitter.com/davidghfrost/sta...LTsVTx09ZSEfIAQuote:
Originally Posted by ninian opinian
That was my first thought too but on reflection I actually think it has done a good job of forcing them to look silly by openly contradicting things they said at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Two other angles, she is somebody who understands the top of the civil service and government and was/is well respected by most. It looks like a mature selection when compared to Corbyn's team or most recent Tory leaders. She also has pretty exceptional brand recognition for somebody who was pretty much unknown last year.
It also forces Sunak to engage with the motley crew who he just wishes would disappear, Rees mogg, Dorries and the like. Either he upsets them by doing/saying nothing to 'protect the legacy of big dog' or he himself gets drawn in to a bitter dispute as somebody who was investigated and accepted the fine/findings at the time (was it a fake apology?). If he does try to block the appointment then the logical next question is 'why can your MPs have xyz jobs that are an apparent conflict of interest? = More time in the press for tory corruption.
I think it's a solid move.
Whether or not it's a good appointment, I just think that it's terrible optics and gives the Tories who moaned about 'Partygate' being a "witchunt" the opportunity to project that narrative even further.
The headlines from the right-wing rags now have bait for their readers during a time when almost all of the focus has been on Matt Hancock and the issues surrounding the N.I. deal.
I wonder if it would have been better to have announced this appointment after the "Partygate" enquiry had reached its conclusion. I would have thought the time factor wouldn't have posed insurmountable problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
These things happen, the problem is Labour will have made a huge fuss in the opposite direction and so the Tories will now. Both would cite it as a stitch up and an example of an obviously politicized civil service. Now that may be the case, but it may also just be a high qualified civil servant getting a job with a political party, which is fine - it's her civil service career she is probably as screwing up if her appointment goes wrong.
Like some have said, it's bad optics but not much substance behind it. But that's the case for most political scandals - more smoke less fire.
I don’t really understand the fuss over this. The way some people are kicking off you’d swear sue gray was involved, leading the way on the conga while swigging a bottle of vodka.
Her report was pretty tame considering everything.
Every Tory who defended the big dog said that she had the highest level of integrity and we needed to sit tight and wait for her to confirm what we already knew. Now something has changed?
If this brings out more Tory’s suggesting that party-gate was a stitch up then that’s a good thing. It shows they still don’t get it.
Even now
YeahQuote:
Originally Posted by superfeathers
I think the nuance missing in this thread is that there is a big difference between the known Boris acolytes pushing the narrative and the leadership doing it. If Sunak goes near this, it will be a mistake I think.
It feels like they trying to draw Sunak into a situation where has to choose to side with the Boris faction within the party or upset them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
I don't see it this way at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfeathers
The main headline on the BBC news website today isn't about the Tories' scandalous, behind-the-scenes duplicity when dealing with Covid.
It's now about this Sue Gray story.
Whether or not there are any merits at all to the finger pointing from the same people who claimed that she was beyond reproach when she was appointed to the inquiry are irrelevant.
The leaked Matt Hancock messages that have been the main focus from the media over the last few days still had plenty of legs to run - but instead, the focus will be aimed at this.
Poor political timing from Labour in my opinion.
This weekend there will be ministers sitting on a couch having to answer whether the government position is to agree or disagree with the Boris faction on sue gray. What would you be telling them to say if you were working in number 10?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I get where you’re coming from but I don’t know if Tory sleaze really resonates too much at the moment, when you’ve gone to the depths this shower have, what should really anger the public is just another news story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
As far as Hancocks WhatsApp messages are concerned, I’d expect there to be another bombshell ready to land in the Sunday papers, so plenty of time for all that
Letting Johnson off the hook a bit isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour - if he thinks he can make a come back it leads to even more fighting in the tory party, and if he did manage to become tory leader again I think he would quickly find that the general public have grown tired of his shit now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
My stance is purely on the timing of this story and the focus it's putting on Labour during a time when the majority of the news media was all focussed (negatively) on the Tories.
The pros & cons of what comes next is up for debate but I haven't even considered that at this point, to be completely honest with you.
How quickly we forget how short the general public's memories are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
A dirty campaign from the Mail and the red tops about how Boris Johnson was the victim of false claims, a tainted & biased inquiry from a Labour stooge and a reminder of how Kier Starmer got away with "having a party" would see his popularity points shoot right up.
It's depressing but I feel that it's fairly accurate.
If it is that easy why were the party so keen to intervene in the leadership contest (completely disenfranchising the membership) post-truss in order to make sure Boris didn't come back. It certainly wasn't about policy or character, he's a bust flush with the public and they recognised that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Putting Boris in the way of Sunak works well for Labour right now.
I'd have to guess that it was because it was still fresh in the minds of everyone as his seat was still warm by the time Truss was ousted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Somewhere down the line, spinning the story as Boris Johnson was the victim of sabotage would probably play very well with a large element of voters.
Who knows. I'm speculating based on a large portion of distrust in the general populace when it comes to matters like this.
More Partygate stuff that exposes this story for the gaslighting it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
And here we go. So now Sunak has to side with the police, due process, sue gray and the conservative-dominated privileges committee or Boris and those who remain loyal to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
There isn't really a middle ground where he can observe from afar since he was implicated in the whole sorry affair.
My guess is Rishi's best chance at survival is to cut Boris and his merry band adrift.
The usual intelligent and informed commentary from Bob Kerslake:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-boris-johnson
However, that doesn't change the fact that this appointment and the media noise it has stirred up will negatively affect public perception of the Partygate investigation outcomes. It hands ammunition to those who claim the civil service, state agencies and experts are not neutral, but partisan. It takes us one more small step towards a polarised Trumpland.
Maybe it does create a trap for Sunak and force him into an uncomfortable choice. But it still feeds a conspiracy narrative and detracts from the stories that Labour should want to dominate the 'news agenda'.
Here’s the lead story on the BBC News website now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64836425
There will be powerful and influential Conservatives who’ll probably be happier with this being the lead story than the Sue Gray one.
There were 6 weeks and plenty of scandals and dishonest behaviour between the Sue Gray Report and Boris resigning.
Some Tories are trying to hide what really forced Boris out.
If this were the tories I'd be all over this so I have to do the same for Labour (even though I believe starmer is more of a tory). This looks corrupt as hell. Is this the best our country can do?
Your view on it is very closely aligned with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I hope we're wrong.
I'm a tad uneasy about it: it would be disastrous if Johnson managed to wriggle free because of a miscalculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
So the lead bbc story went from hancocks texts, to sue gray getting a new job, to boris knowingly misleading Parliament and Partygate. Within a couple of hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
And some people will deduce from this that there is corruption on the left
Wait what??
Starmer and his front bench are completely hopeless
I hope to god they have enough in the tank to get over the line and beat the tory gits
If labour can't win this they may as well retire , the lot of them
Dreadful decision, giving the Tories lots to chomp on .
How this sit with impartiality is a mystery ??
Isn't there supposed to be a year or so grace period before top civil servicants are allowed to take on external politic / media roles , she must know that ?? .
I'm sure Sue Gray applied that actual rule to someone else recently.
She must be okay though as she once thought Alistair Campbell should stand as an MP , as Labour needed something fresh and her son is a big Labour man .
From Spectator today :
Did Sue Gray break the rules?
By James Heale
Lawyers know which questions to duck – as Keir Starmer demonstrated on LBC today. Appearing on his weekly phone-in, the Labour leader refused ten times to answer questions over when he first made an approach to Sue Gray about appointing her as his chief of staff. The Spectator was the first to report – in November – that Starmer was seeking to hire a senior civil servant for the role. So was an approach made to Gray five weeks ago – or five months ago? Starmer refused to say. When news first broke that Gray was being considered for the role, party sources suggested that Starmer personally initiated contact ‘several months ago’. Now, Starmer will only say that he has been in discussions with her for ‘a little while now.’
This matters because there are strict government guidelines around civil service impartiality and accepting party political roles. Gray is expected to tell Acoba today when exactly an approach was made. But Conservative MPs are not content to wait for the watchdog’s recommendations to be made public. Sir Robert Buckland has secured an Urgent Question on the appointment, which will be debated in the House at 3.30 p.m. Some are furious about Gray’s role in the partygate probe and have publicly suggested that she was biased in her investigation. Others want to know why she did not inform ministers of any contact with Labour figures to discuss her new job – even though it is a requirement under civil service rules.
Gray’s proposed appointment doesn’t invalidate the work she carried out during partygate. However, the timing and manner of the approach are the things that concern many in Whitehall. Susan Acland-Hood, the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education, reportedly reminded her colleagues last week of the importance of flagging any contact with Opposition figures. The irony is not lost on many in SW1 about a former head of the Cabinet Office’s Proprietary and Ethics team being under suspicion of breaking the civil service code she was meant to uphold.
Hopefully everything will come out during the process. If there's any proof of wrongdoing then Starmer has shot himself in the foot.
No doubt that Life on Mars will support the due process that he expects other parties and their representatives to receive.
I just about managed to type that without laughing.
I sincerely doubt anything severely bad or immoral has been done, but the optics aren't great and Starmer struggled today to say when he first talked to her about the role etc.
Seems like it might have been wiser to leave more time between her report and appointment and/or looked for someone else.
Fundementally, her report led to Boris Johnsons resignation, so it just doesn't look that independent if she then gets a senior role in Labour.
Wouldn't be surprised if this job offer ends up being withdrawn tbh
I did listen , it was weird asked ten times about a simplistic question ,not saying anything is wrong just be honest . Something like yes to be fair we have been courting Sue's services for some time as we want to be ready for Government and she knows every nook and cranny ? whats to hide ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
"Fundementally, her report led to Boris Johnsons resignation"Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Pardon? I think that we are re-writing history here, no?
It was his backing of Chris Pincher which led to the Tory revolt - which then led to his resignation.
They were all standing by him throughout 'Partygate' and the aftermath.
He was going absolutely nowhere until it was found out that he was lying about being aware of Pincher's previous behaviour.
If you want to argue this fact, Boris Johnson even said that the Sue Gray report "vindicated" him.
:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I know its so silly I'd laugh as well ,glad your with me on this one ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I'm laughing *at* you. Not with you :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars