| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 10:41 - Mar 4 with 468 views | mrshallisfit |
Exactly. Tories suggesting something doesn't pass the sniff test. Jeez. You couldn't make it up. |  | |  |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 16:56 - Mar 6 with 395 views | DJR |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 08:45 - Mar 4 by DJR |
Speaking as a former civil servant who had political neutrality drummed into me, my concern is with the propriety of a senior civil servant accepting a political appointment whilst effectively still a civil servant.
And the fact that the Tories have no understanding of propriety, doesn't to my mind justify what she and Starmer have done.
The problem it seems to me is the increasing blurring of the distinction between the public, private and political sectors in the last 30 years, and this appointment merely blurs things even further. [Post edited 4 Mar 2023 9:21]
|
Interesting that the Speaker today allowed an urgent question about “impartiality in the civil service in the light of the proposed appointment [of Sue Gray by Keir Starmer]”.
The question was tabled by Sir Robert Buckland, no fan of Johnson, and to my mind raises an important question about the propriety of what Gray and Starmer have done.
Elements of the debate can be found on the following link.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/mar/06/rishi-sunak-asylum-plan-sm
Looking at the below the line comments on the article, virtually everyone is supportive of what has taken place, but with years of the Tories defending the indefensible, I don't think it is a good look for Guardian readers and Labour to be defending what I think is the indefensible. Surely, a Starmer government is meant to be a break from the past on this sort of thing, or has the situation in this country become so polarised that, to paraphrase a well known phrase, "it's my party, right or wrong".
I suppose the problem is that politically it would be very damaging for Labour to back down on this. But I am beginning to doubt whether Sue Gray will actually be appointed before the next election, or at all. [Post edited 6 Mar 2023 17:59]
|  | | |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 17:48 - Mar 6 with 344 views | DJR |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 16:56 - Mar 6 by DJR |
Interesting that the Speaker today allowed an urgent question about “impartiality in the civil service in the light of the proposed appointment [of Sue Gray by Keir Starmer]”.
The question was tabled by Sir Robert Buckland, no fan of Johnson, and to my mind raises an important question about the propriety of what Gray and Starmer have done.
Elements of the debate can be found on the following link.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/mar/06/rishi-sunak-asylum-plan-sm
Looking at the below the line comments on the article, virtually everyone is supportive of what has taken place, but with years of the Tories defending the indefensible, I don't think it is a good look for Guardian readers and Labour to be defending what I think is the indefensible. Surely, a Starmer government is meant to be a break from the past on this sort of thing, or has the situation in this country become so polarised that, to paraphrase a well known phrase, "it's my party, right or wrong".
I suppose the problem is that politically it would be very damaging for Labour to back down on this. But I am beginning to doubt whether Sue Gray will actually be appointed before the next election, or at all. [Post edited 6 Mar 2023 17:59]
|
As if to prove my point, here is the opening paragraph of the Guardian's snap verdict on the debate.
"It is not much fun being a Conservative MP at the moment — the party is still 20 points behind in the polls, according to the latest figures — but for about 70 minutes it must have felt like bliss for them in the House of Commons. They have had good days before under Rishi Sunak. But to actually have the upper hand over Labour on an issue of probity — that may not have happened for some years." | | | |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 17:59 - Mar 6 with 310 views | HARRY10 |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 17:48 - Mar 6 by DJR |
As if to prove my point, here is the opening paragraph of the Guardian's snap verdict on the debate.
"It is not much fun being a Conservative MP at the moment — the party is still 20 points behind in the polls, according to the latest figures — but for about 70 minutes it must have felt like bliss for them in the House of Commons. They have had good days before under Rishi Sunak. But to actually have the upper hand over Labour on an issue of probity — that may not have happened for some years." |
eh ?
Has there been any evidence of rule breaking, or failure to follow the correct procedure ? I think not. Which renders their squeaks meaningless.
The bloater is guilty. He admitted so himself by paying the Met Police fine. Which punctures a big fat hole in his delusion that he did not mislead/lie to Parliament. A delusion I am certain he does not believe. More so as we have spent nigh on a quarter of a million telling him what he should know.
So the real question now is what sanction will be applied and will the Tory Parliamentary Party do what is best for them (and the country) or fark themselves up once again and try to save the lying gut bucket | | | |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 18:11 - Mar 6 with 295 views | DJR |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 17:59 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
eh ?
Has there been any evidence of rule breaking, or failure to follow the correct procedure ? I think not. Which renders their squeaks meaningless.
The bloater is guilty. He admitted so himself by paying the Met Police fine. Which punctures a big fat hole in his delusion that he did not mislead/lie to Parliament. A delusion I am certain he does not believe. More so as we have spent nigh on a quarter of a million telling him what he should know.
So the real question now is what sanction will be applied and will the Tory Parliamentary Party do what is best for them (and the country) or fark themselves up once again and try to save the lying gut bucket |
When it comes to propriety, it's not always about rules, but this from the Guardian snap verdict suggests due process was not followed.
"Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, used his opening statement to set out the obligations in civil servants like Sue Gray, and it seems clear that the rule about getting clearance from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before announcing a job like this has not been met. Gray was also meant to get clearance before having contact with a senior figure from the opposition. She is the one who seems to have broken the rules, not Keir Starmer, but Labour was clearly on the defensive, and mostly it turned into a “clobber Starmer” session."
It's also not a good look for Starmer to be evasive about when contact was made with Gray. And as a lawyer, Starmer should have realised that contacting or appointing someone who had a role in Partygate, in advance of a quasi-judicial Parliamentary investigation into Johnson, does not fit with the idea of justice not only being done, but also being seen to be done.
The thing is that I oppose the Tories as much as, if not more than, anyone on TWTD, but that doesn't mean I give free rein to Labour to do anything.
Of course, maybe it's all deliberate because it brings to the fore Partygate, which will inevitably damage the Tories, but that would be a very cynical thing to do. But I sense ineptitude on the part of Starmer's advisers because whatever happens in the investigation, many on the right will continue to pray-in-aid this appointment. [Post edited 6 Mar 2023 18:17]
| | | |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 19:32 - Mar 6 with 263 views | LeoMuff |
| Tories suddenly concerned about "integrity"!!!!!!!! on 18:11 - Mar 6 by DJR |
When it comes to propriety, it's not always about rules, but this from the Guardian snap verdict suggests due process was not followed.
"Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, used his opening statement to set out the obligations in civil servants like Sue Gray, and it seems clear that the rule about getting clearance from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before announcing a job like this has not been met. Gray was also meant to get clearance before having contact with a senior figure from the opposition. She is the one who seems to have broken the rules, not Keir Starmer, but Labour was clearly on the defensive, and mostly it turned into a “clobber Starmer” session."
It's also not a good look for Starmer to be evasive about when contact was made with Gray. And as a lawyer, Starmer should have realised that contacting or appointing someone who had a role in Partygate, in advance of a quasi-judicial Parliamentary investigation into Johnson, does not fit with the idea of justice not only being done, but also being seen to be done.
The thing is that I oppose the Tories as much as, if not more than, anyone on TWTD, but that doesn't mean I give free rein to Labour to do anything.
Of course, maybe it's all deliberate because it brings to the fore Partygate, which will inevitably damage the Tories, but that would be a very cynical thing to do. But I sense ineptitude on the part of Starmer's advisers because whatever happens in the investigation, many on the right will continue to pray-in-aid this appointment. [Post edited 6 Mar 2023 18:17]
|
Surely the thing that’s scaring the Torys is that Grey has seen everything on partygate, also it’s a diversion from these What’s app messages which so far are a goldmine for Labour. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
