| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland 13:34 - Feb 9 with 8554 views | GlasgowBlue |
About to call for Starmer to resign. He'll be gone with days imo [Post edited 12 Feb 10:57]
|  |
| |  |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 10:58 - Feb 12 with 988 views | DJR |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 10:45 - Feb 12 by Pinewoodblue |
Re electing a Labour government is dependent on Conservative Party taking votes off Reform.
Labour’s stance shouldn’t be about why people shouldn’t vote Reform it should be about why we should vote Labour.
We need a growing economy to stand any chance of achieving that. The economy needs to be strong enough, for example, to be able to increase tax codes. Currently, as a pensioner, every year my tax code goes down. Some call it a stealth tax but it is visible. |
I think the issue up to now is that Labour has not had a compelling narrative for why people should vote for it.
But I thought this comment from the Guardian was interesting.
"Although Ratcliffe’s claim that the UK population had increased by 12m over the past five years was shockingly and absurdly inaccurate, it was still moderately surprising that Downing Street criticised Ratcliffe so quickly and so explicitly. In the past, when public figures have made anti-immigration comments, the default government response has often been to say that they have a point and that these concerns are understandable. It is to soon to know whether the Ratcliffe rebuttal is evidence of a new approach, but Morgan McSweeney, who was the PM’s chief of staff until Sunday, was one of the figures in Downing Street most nervous about being seen as pro-immigration, and there is speculation that, with him out of the building, Starmer might be bolder about articulating his progressive instincts."
By contrast, Lisa Nandy was a bit mealy-mouthed, and this was Mel Stride's response.
"I wouldn’t use that term colonised. I think it’s pejorative and suggests there’s some kind of huge negativity around the motivations of those people that come here. And I don’t think that’s the case across the piece.
But he is referencing something that is of great concern to millions of people up and down the country, that migration has been too high for too long.
When we were in government, we were doing something about that at the tail end of the Conservative government. We’ve seen those figures coming down as a consequence of our action.
But we do need to be very aware of the impact that migration has, particularly illegal migration, which the government is showing no signs of being able to control." [Post edited 12 Feb 11:01]
|  | | |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 11:05 - Feb 12 with 969 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 10:58 - Feb 12 by DJR |
I think the issue up to now is that Labour has not had a compelling narrative for why people should vote for it.
But I thought this comment from the Guardian was interesting.
"Although Ratcliffe’s claim that the UK population had increased by 12m over the past five years was shockingly and absurdly inaccurate, it was still moderately surprising that Downing Street criticised Ratcliffe so quickly and so explicitly. In the past, when public figures have made anti-immigration comments, the default government response has often been to say that they have a point and that these concerns are understandable. It is to soon to know whether the Ratcliffe rebuttal is evidence of a new approach, but Morgan McSweeney, who was the PM’s chief of staff until Sunday, was one of the figures in Downing Street most nervous about being seen as pro-immigration, and there is speculation that, with him out of the building, Starmer might be bolder about articulating his progressive instincts."
By contrast, Lisa Nandy was a bit mealy-mouthed, and this was Mel Stride's response.
"I wouldn’t use that term colonised. I think it’s pejorative and suggests there’s some kind of huge negativity around the motivations of those people that come here. And I don’t think that’s the case across the piece.
But he is referencing something that is of great concern to millions of people up and down the country, that migration has been too high for too long.
When we were in government, we were doing something about that at the tail end of the Conservative government. We’ve seen those figures coming down as a consequence of our action.
But we do need to be very aware of the impact that migration has, particularly illegal migration, which the government is showing no signs of being able to control." [Post edited 12 Feb 11:01]
|
The difference is that Ratcliffe wasn't making a reasonable point about immigration. He was using racist and inflammatory language whilst providing fake figures. I don't think the removable of McSweeney has any bearing on Labour's rebuttal. | |
| |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 11:15 - Feb 12 with 927 views | glasso |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 17:11 - Feb 9 by hype313 |
They have, he's bang to rights on poor judgment at best, employing someone who was visiting a known pedo, despite several warnings against.
It's pretty black and white.
Imagine the uproar if this was the Tories, I mean the country nearly erupted over a slice of cake. [Post edited 9 Feb 17:12]
|
You just put a piece of cake over all the victims of Covid. |  | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 14:20 - Feb 12 with 863 views | DJR |
One thing that annoys me about the current administration is the way they tend to blame the civil service for their his woes (vetting and Sue Gray spring to mind).
Thatcher and Blair never did that.
The current scapegoat is the Cabinet Secretary but the following from the Guardian suggests things have entered Kafkaesque territory.
"No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked
The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
He repeatedly said he would not comment on the “ongoing speculation”.
Asked about the claims that Antonia Romeo is being lined up to replace Wormald, the spokesperson said those were “speculative reports”."
And here is this from today's FT from the leader of the union of which I am a retired member.
"Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the trade union that represents senior civil servants, said the government had failed to “learn the lessons from the Cummings era” — a reference to the attacks on the civil service launched by Dominic Cummings when he was chief adviser to Boris Johnson in Number 10.
“What message does this briefing send to the entire civil service, never mind anyone thinking of joining government in a senior role?” Penman said on X this week." [Post edited 12 Feb 14:26]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 17:17 - Feb 12 with 802 views | DJR |
This explains the mystery but a good worker never blames their tools.
"No 10 confirms Chris Wormald has been forced out as cabinet secretary
Downing Street has confirmed that Chris Wormald has been forced out of his post as cabinet secretary. It has issued a statement saying that Keir Starmer and Wormald have decided that Wormald “will stand down as the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service by mutual agreement from today”.
No 10 has not announced his replacement, but it says that Antonia Romeo, the Home Office permanent secretary – who is reportedly the favourite to replace Wormald – will share responsibility for the job in the meantime with Catherine Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, and James Bowler, permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Treasury.
A new cabinet secretary will be appointed “shortly”, No 10 says.
In a statement, Starmer said:
I am very grateful to Sir Chris for his long and distinguished career of public service, spanning more than 35 years, and for the support that he has given me over the past year. I have agreed with him that he will step down as cabinet secretary today. I wish him the very best for the future.
And Wormald said:
It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as a civil servant for the past 35 years, and a particular distinction to lead the service as cabinet secretary. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the extraordinary civil servants, public servants, ministers, and advisers I have worked with. Our country is fortunate to have such dedicated individuals devoted to public service, and I wish them every success for the future.
There is no indication that Wormald intended to leave at this point. He was only appointed in December 2024. But, soon after he got the job, government sources started briefing to the effect that Starmer found him too conventional.
During the 20th century cabinet secretaries normally remained in post for a decade or more. Recently about half a decade has become a more normal term of office. But Wormald will be the shortest serving cabinet secretary on record."
The Attlee government probably put through the most extensive reforms in such a short period of time ever but it never blamed the civil service.
[Post edited 12 Feb 17:21]
| | | |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 17:33 - Feb 12 with 792 views | jasondozzell |
| Anas Sawar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:48 - Feb 12 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Where did I say the Labour Together project has been a success? I merely commented that they've done some good stuff that doesn't get anywhere near the traction the mistakes get. I don't think Labour's approach has been to play down their successes, that's the right wing media's job.
People are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This government haven't been a resounding success so far, and in fact have made plenty of missteps. But they're far more preferable to any of the alternatives.
jasondozzell can down arrow as much as he likes, it won't bring Corbyn back or suddenly make him successful if it did. The only thing his approach will bring is Farage as PM. Maybe he wants that as an eff you to everyone who didn't back Corbyn, but I'd rather not feck the country up even more just to prove a point.
Hold your nose and stick with Labour, I reckon. Things could be a whole lot worse. [Post edited 12 Feb 9:54]
|
This government is delivering Reform not Corbyn.
The centrists can't stop talking about Corbyn! 6 years after he left the leadership. That tells you everything you need to know about the political project we've witnessed under Labour Together.
It's over. It was over as soon as Labour was recaptured by the very worst people at the very worst time.
Cosplaying 1997 to feel virtuous was so self indulgent. |  | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 18:51 - Feb 12 with 748 views | DJR |
With no successor currently appointed, Jon Craig on Sky said "Starmer's indecision has been made" which was rather pointed.
And before Wormald's effective sacking, FDA General Secretary Dave Penman appeared on BBC Radio 4's World at One, criticising anonymous briefings against Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald, which have escalated over the past week amidst speculation about Wormald’s future as Cabinet Secretary. Penman told the programme:
"Chris Wormald is currently the Cabinet Secretary. What we're seeing is speculation and press briefing, presumably from people in Number 10, about his position while he's serving the country as Cabinet Secretary. And that is just extraordinary, not only undermining in terms of Chris as an individual, but the role of Cabinet Secretary and has a chilling effect across the civil service. This is no way to run a country." | | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 20:39 - Feb 12 with 718 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 14:20 - Feb 12 by DJR |
One thing that annoys me about the current administration is the way they tend to blame the civil service for their his woes (vetting and Sue Gray spring to mind).
Thatcher and Blair never did that.
The current scapegoat is the Cabinet Secretary but the following from the Guardian suggests things have entered Kafkaesque territory.
"No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked
The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
He repeatedly said he would not comment on the “ongoing speculation”.
Asked about the claims that Antonia Romeo is being lined up to replace Wormald, the spokesperson said those were “speculative reports”."
And here is this from today's FT from the leader of the union of which I am a retired member.
"Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the trade union that represents senior civil servants, said the government had failed to “learn the lessons from the Cummings era” — a reference to the attacks on the civil service launched by Dominic Cummings when he was chief adviser to Boris Johnson in Number 10.
“What message does this briefing send to the entire civil service, never mind anyone thinking of joining government in a senior role?” Penman said on X this week." [Post edited 12 Feb 14:26]
|
Blair never did that?
https://www.independent.co.uk/
The direct quote was "You try getting change in the public sector and public services - I bear the scars on my back after two years in government. Heaven knows what it will be like if it it is a bit longer." |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 20:57 - Feb 12 with 701 views | DJR |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 20:39 - Feb 12 by Clapham_Junction |
Blair never did that?
https://www.independent.co.uk/
The direct quote was "You try getting change in the public sector and public services - I bear the scars on my back after two years in government. Heaven knows what it will be like if it it is a bit longer." |
I was focusing on the Civil Service, as I was a civil servant in the Cabinet Office throughout the Blair years, and his comments don't seemed aimed at the Civil Service.
Indeed, the Blair government with the aid of the Civil Service achieved some radical changes in its early very early years such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 (which set up the Scottish Parliament), the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
And I would certainly have remembered if I had heard adverse comments about the civil servants or the Civil Service.
Indeed, ministers in both the Blair and Brown governments realised just how important the Civil Service was to implementing its agenda and policies. In addition, Blair had properly prepared for government, not something that the current regime had done.
As an aside, the minster in charge of our small office was so aware of the importance of our work, and so grateful for what we did, that he managed to negotiate a permanent pensionable allowance for us which was getting on for half our salary, not something that was really known outside our office. 
Things changed with the coalition because many ministers had a deep-seated loathing of the public sector, which extended to the Civil Service. There were, however, notable exceptions such as Lord Young, a true gentleman, and Oliver Letwin whose wife was the lead lawyer in the combined DWP/DH legal department.
It seems to me counter-productive for ministers to denigrate civil servant, as well as being unpleasant, so I got out as soon as I could in early 2011.
And it is sad to see Starmer, a former civil servant himself, acting in a similar way to the Tories.
EDIT: this from the Guardian.
Starmer’s decision to oust Wormald drew ire from senior civil servants over the brutality of the move. One person described the mood as “sulphurous” over the prime minister’s apparent willingness to let senior officials go.
“What a message this all gives to public servants, political and official,” one senior government insider said. “Keir Starmer says let’s change things, let’s be bold. But the moment it gets tough, ‘you’ll be out the door to save my skin’.
“Antonia will need eyes in the back of her head to spot the knives Keir is wielding.”
Some Starmer allies cautioned against an expedited process. “Keir needs to wait for things to calm down before crashing into another set of bad decisions in a panicky way because he’s feeling boxed in. When you’re in a hole, stop digging,” one said. [Post edited 13 Feb 7:55]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 07:13 - Feb 13 with 612 views | DJR |
Here are some extracts from an article in today's Times. It's all very shoddy, and something I feel angry about as a former civil servant.
Government officials refused to sign off on Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Britain’s most senior civil servant because it would cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million pounds that could not be justified.
In an unprecedented move, senior civil servants told Starmer that ministers would have to issue a formal “direction” to officials to make the redundancy payment to the Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald because there were no clear and compelling reasons why he should be sacked.
But Starmer overrode their concerns and agreed to the payout, having concluded that he could no longer work with the 57-year-old whom he only appointed to the job less than a year ago.
Wormald only found out he was going to lose his job at the weekend from media reports that said he had lost the confidence of the prime minister and was to be replaced as part of a wider shake up of Number 10 in the wake of the Mandelson scandal.
Starmer is said to have blamed him for failings in the vetting process for the disgraced peer despite having only been appointed to the job four days before the appointment was announced.
He was also unhappy with Wormald’s leadership of the civil service, blaming him for not pushing through the government’s agenda.
But the move has angered other senior Whitehall figures who have privately accused Starmer of scapegoating Wormald to cover up his own failings.
“How many sacrifices must be made to remove a stain on the PM’s character?” said one.
Another added: “The reaction across the civil service has been awful. Not because they all loved Chris, but because they are wondering what happened to Keir Starmer who claimed to be a man who believed in public service and integrity.”
Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA union that represents senior civil servants said Wormald “had barely started in the cabinet secretary role before the anonymous briefings started to scapegoat him and undermine his authority”.
“It is worth remembering that civil servants cannot publicly defend themselves. Undermining senior officials has a chilling effect throughout the civil service, from the leadership group down,” he said.
Under the terms of Wormald’s contract he was entitled to one month’s pay for every year served in the civil service. Because he had joined the civil service in 1991 he was eligible for the maximum payout of just over £260,000.
Under government value for money rules, payments over £95,000 have to be authorised by the Treasury and departments need to show “clear and compelling reasons” for making the pay-out.
One senior Whitehall source said Wormald’s departure had been delayed by “wrangling” between the Treasury and Number 10 over who would take responsibility for authorising the spending, which would have to be published and scrutinised by government auditors.
They said officials “dug in” and refused to sign off the payout without a “ministerial direction”. Ministerial directions are formal instructions telling departments to proceed with a spending proposal, despite objection from permanent secretaries. [Post edited 13 Feb 7:21]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 07:59 - Feb 13 with 573 views | WeWereZombies |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 20:57 - Feb 12 by DJR |
I was focusing on the Civil Service, as I was a civil servant in the Cabinet Office throughout the Blair years, and his comments don't seemed aimed at the Civil Service.
Indeed, the Blair government with the aid of the Civil Service achieved some radical changes in its early very early years such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 (which set up the Scottish Parliament), the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
And I would certainly have remembered if I had heard adverse comments about the civil servants or the Civil Service.
Indeed, ministers in both the Blair and Brown governments realised just how important the Civil Service was to implementing its agenda and policies. In addition, Blair had properly prepared for government, not something that the current regime had done.
As an aside, the minster in charge of our small office was so aware of the importance of our work, and so grateful for what we did, that he managed to negotiate a permanent pensionable allowance for us which was getting on for half our salary, not something that was really known outside our office.
Things changed with the coalition because many ministers had a deep-seated loathing of the public sector, which extended to the Civil Service. There were, however, notable exceptions such as Lord Young, a true gentleman, and Oliver Letwin whose wife was the lead lawyer in the combined DWP/DH legal department.
It seems to me counter-productive for ministers to denigrate civil servant, as well as being unpleasant, so I got out as soon as I could in early 2011.
And it is sad to see Starmer, a former civil servant himself, acting in a similar way to the Tories.
EDIT: this from the Guardian.
Starmer’s decision to oust Wormald drew ire from senior civil servants over the brutality of the move. One person described the mood as “sulphurous” over the prime minister’s apparent willingness to let senior officials go.
“What a message this all gives to public servants, political and official,” one senior government insider said. “Keir Starmer says let’s change things, let’s be bold. But the moment it gets tough, ‘you’ll be out the door to save my skin’.
“Antonia will need eyes in the back of her head to spot the knives Keir is wielding.”
Some Starmer allies cautioned against an expedited process. “Keir needs to wait for things to calm down before crashing into another set of bad decisions in a panicky way because he’s feeling boxed in. When you’re in a hole, stop digging,” one said. [Post edited 13 Feb 7:55]
|
This is all fascinating and your privileged position gives these posts a gravitas and resonance that we rarely find in the forum (although I understand that FaceBook and other social media are far worse for puffery) but Clapham's link to The Independent article was very pertinent also and I have to wonder whether you caught much drift of this type of malarkey:
'Senior Government insiders said last night that the offensive was part of a strategy by Downing Street to get a grip of the domestic agenda after setbacks in the European elections and damaging speculation of internal division. One senior source said Peter Mandelson's hand was behind the strategy. "It is classic Mandelson stuff. You create conflict to get your own agenda in the papers," he said.'
As an aside I don't want to favour the soundbite approach but brevity and concision are virtues in all communication and especially so on an internet forum. We all fall into the trap of putting too much detail into justifying important points which then don't get made because most of the readership glance at the post and then move onto a shorter one leaving it unread but when you add an edit that significantly lengthens a post I think that's a bit of a no-no in established TWTD Forum etiquette. |  |
| |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 08:02 - Feb 13 with 572 views | DJR |
Going back to the subject of the office I worked in, an experiment was tried under the Major government to get the private legal sector to draft some legislation.
As expected, it cost vastly more than had they used our office and what was produced was so hopeless that it couldn't be used.
The experiment was a fiasco and not surprisingly it was never attempted again. [Post edited 13 Feb 9:23]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 08:11 - Feb 13 with 558 views | DJR |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 07:59 - Feb 13 by WeWereZombies |
This is all fascinating and your privileged position gives these posts a gravitas and resonance that we rarely find in the forum (although I understand that FaceBook and other social media are far worse for puffery) but Clapham's link to The Independent article was very pertinent also and I have to wonder whether you caught much drift of this type of malarkey:
'Senior Government insiders said last night that the offensive was part of a strategy by Downing Street to get a grip of the domestic agenda after setbacks in the European elections and damaging speculation of internal division. One senior source said Peter Mandelson's hand was behind the strategy. "It is classic Mandelson stuff. You create conflict to get your own agenda in the papers," he said.'
As an aside I don't want to favour the soundbite approach but brevity and concision are virtues in all communication and especially so on an internet forum. We all fall into the trap of putting too much detail into justifying important points which then don't get made because most of the readership glance at the post and then move onto a shorter one leaving it unread but when you add an edit that significantly lengthens a post I think that's a bit of a no-no in established TWTD Forum etiquette. |
I did notice the second paragraph, and as regards your last I sometimes set out the key bits of an article because I think that there is perhaps even less likely that people will read a link, or find the key bits in a link.
As regards the extracts from the Times' article, that is paywalled but I managed to find a tool that enabled me to access it.
And to be frank, if people haven't got the attention span to read what aren't excessively long posts, we're all doomed.
Finally, I have deliberately chosen to raise the points I have on a thread relating to Starmer rather than start new threads, so if people aren't interest in this topic, they don't have to bother with it [Post edited 13 Feb 8:18]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 08:18 - Feb 13 with 531 views | WeWereZombies |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 08:11 - Feb 13 by DJR |
I did notice the second paragraph, and as regards your last I sometimes set out the key bits of an article because I think that there is perhaps even less likely that people will read a link, or find the key bits in a link.
As regards the extracts from the Times' article, that is paywalled but I managed to find a tool that enabled me to access it.
And to be frank, if people haven't got the attention span to read what aren't excessively long posts, we're all doomed.
Finally, I have deliberately chosen to raise the points I have on a thread relating to Starmer rather than start new threads, so if people aren't interest in this topic, they don't have to bother with it [Post edited 13 Feb 8:18]
|
Ah, you've found some common ground with gtsb in your penultimate sentence. At the end of the day we're all Town supporters.
[edit had to change 'last' to 'penultimate' due to your edit...please don't edit again making me use 'pre-penultimate'....] [Post edited 13 Feb 8:25]
| |
| |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:28 - Feb 13 with 476 views | DJR |
I may be ploughing a lonely furrow, but here's some more.
Gus O’Donnell, who was cabinet secretary for six years under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, was on the Today programme this morning and he said that the treatment of Wormald had been “shabby”. He said:
"Where it is shabby is the fact that we’ve got to this place and that they have briefed anonymously against the cabinet secretary, saying it’s not working.
They’ve been doing this for a long time. This is a process that this government, I’m afraid, [it’s] one of their biggest failings. You’ve seen it right from the start with Sue Gray, briefings against her, all the rest of it. This is the fundamental problem."
O’Donnell blamed the PM’s special advisers (or spads, as they are called) for the negative briefings. And he criticised Starmer for failing to stop this.
"Really good spads [special advisers] are really useful. I’ve worked with Ed Balls, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell. If they’re good, they understand their subject, they can make the the relationship between ministers and civil servants work a lot better.
Bad special advisers turn out to be second rate PR people. [They] can be disastrous. You saw in the run up to the budget; it was a complete omnishambles from a comms point of view, whatever you think about the economics of it.
So that’s where the prime minister must take responsibility and get a grip." | | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:33 - Feb 13 with 473 views | itfcjoe |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 07:13 - Feb 13 by DJR |
Here are some extracts from an article in today's Times. It's all very shoddy, and something I feel angry about as a former civil servant.
Government officials refused to sign off on Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Britain’s most senior civil servant because it would cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million pounds that could not be justified.
In an unprecedented move, senior civil servants told Starmer that ministers would have to issue a formal “direction” to officials to make the redundancy payment to the Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald because there were no clear and compelling reasons why he should be sacked.
But Starmer overrode their concerns and agreed to the payout, having concluded that he could no longer work with the 57-year-old whom he only appointed to the job less than a year ago.
Wormald only found out he was going to lose his job at the weekend from media reports that said he had lost the confidence of the prime minister and was to be replaced as part of a wider shake up of Number 10 in the wake of the Mandelson scandal.
Starmer is said to have blamed him for failings in the vetting process for the disgraced peer despite having only been appointed to the job four days before the appointment was announced.
He was also unhappy with Wormald’s leadership of the civil service, blaming him for not pushing through the government’s agenda.
But the move has angered other senior Whitehall figures who have privately accused Starmer of scapegoating Wormald to cover up his own failings.
“How many sacrifices must be made to remove a stain on the PM’s character?” said one.
Another added: “The reaction across the civil service has been awful. Not because they all loved Chris, but because they are wondering what happened to Keir Starmer who claimed to be a man who believed in public service and integrity.”
Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA union that represents senior civil servants said Wormald “had barely started in the cabinet secretary role before the anonymous briefings started to scapegoat him and undermine his authority”.
“It is worth remembering that civil servants cannot publicly defend themselves. Undermining senior officials has a chilling effect throughout the civil service, from the leadership group down,” he said.
Under the terms of Wormald’s contract he was entitled to one month’s pay for every year served in the civil service. Because he had joined the civil service in 1991 he was eligible for the maximum payout of just over £260,000.
Under government value for money rules, payments over £95,000 have to be authorised by the Treasury and departments need to show “clear and compelling reasons” for making the pay-out.
One senior Whitehall source said Wormald’s departure had been delayed by “wrangling” between the Treasury and Number 10 over who would take responsibility for authorising the spending, which would have to be published and scrutinised by government auditors.
They said officials “dug in” and refused to sign off the payout without a “ministerial direction”. Ministerial directions are formal instructions telling departments to proceed with a spending proposal, despite objection from permanent secretaries. [Post edited 13 Feb 7:21]
|
If the PM can't work with the Cabinet Secretary then the Cabinet Secretary needs to go; it's just illustrative of how nothing can get done in this country because there is too much legislation.
Nothing can happen, Government's can't get on with things, councils can't get on with things and we are left in a position where the country just doesn't function. Levers can't be pulled, changes can't be made and lawyers just rule the world.
Everything has been done for the right reasons with human rights acts, disability acts, H&S acts, employment acts.....but we are now in a position where Govts and Councils can't achieve anything and it will end up with an authoritarian Govt claiming they can change this but just pilfering the taxpayers more and more like the US |  |
| |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:39 - Feb 13 with 465 views | DJR |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:33 - Feb 13 by itfcjoe |
If the PM can't work with the Cabinet Secretary then the Cabinet Secretary needs to go; it's just illustrative of how nothing can get done in this country because there is too much legislation.
Nothing can happen, Government's can't get on with things, councils can't get on with things and we are left in a position where the country just doesn't function. Levers can't be pulled, changes can't be made and lawyers just rule the world.
Everything has been done for the right reasons with human rights acts, disability acts, H&S acts, employment acts.....but we are now in a position where Govts and Councils can't achieve anything and it will end up with an authoritarian Govt claiming they can change this but just pilfering the taxpayers more and more like the US |
With properly thought-out policies and a properly functioning operation in No.10, the civil service can achieve anything the government requires.
Indeed, the number of wrong turns and U-turns indicates that it is not the civil service or the Cabinet Secretary which is the problem.
And just look at the sort of problems that can arise when rushing ahead with things.
https://www.theguardian.com/ed
https://www.gov.uk/government/ [Post edited 13 Feb 10:53]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:49 - Feb 13 with 449 views | itfcjoe |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 09:39 - Feb 13 by DJR |
With properly thought-out policies and a properly functioning operation in No.10, the civil service can achieve anything the government requires.
Indeed, the number of wrong turns and U-turns indicates that it is not the civil service or the Cabinet Secretary which is the problem.
And just look at the sort of problems that can arise when rushing ahead with things.
https://www.theguardian.com/ed
https://www.gov.uk/government/ [Post edited 13 Feb 10:53]
|
I'm not really blaming the civil service for it, they are having to work under the same constraints and legislations as all private companies that can't make things work as are tied up in the same weeds and unable to pull the same levers.
I offer no solutions, but the lawyerly and compliance country we have to live in just makes fundamental and real consequential change impossible - "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" | |
| |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 19:23 - Feb 13 with 354 views | Churchman |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 08:11 - Feb 13 by DJR |
I did notice the second paragraph, and as regards your last I sometimes set out the key bits of an article because I think that there is perhaps even less likely that people will read a link, or find the key bits in a link.
As regards the extracts from the Times' article, that is paywalled but I managed to find a tool that enabled me to access it.
And to be frank, if people haven't got the attention span to read what aren't excessively long posts, we're all doomed.
Finally, I have deliberately chosen to raise the points I have on a thread relating to Starmer rather than start new threads, so if people aren't interest in this topic, they don't have to bother with it [Post edited 13 Feb 8:18]
|
DJR - thank you for your posts. The content is interesting, resonates with me and I can only echo what you have said.
I worked in the CS from 2003-2019 and in Whitehall 2006-2019 for HMRC and cross-government projects, one of which was front page news for a while, the other has been since 2016. I’ve seen what governments do closely enough and what the Civil Service does even closer.
The things to remember are that the Government create policy, the Civil Service implement it. Simple really. They also challenge it - not to overturn what ministers propose but to present to them such minor details as costs, potential revenues, possible political impact, resource requirements, timescales etc etc. The choice is then the Ministers.
At no time working in Whitehall did I hear political opinions expressed by Civil Servants. It was not part of the job or of any interest in the work environment.
What was part of the job was that a Civil Servants could not answer back, however rude, abusive or fundamentally wrong a Minister could be. That could include verbal abuse and worse. The only recourse, say a Director General, might have was to resign.
Civil Servants operate to a code. Politicians are meant to, but don’t and their behaviour appears to have deteriorated.
The Civil Service is an easy target. It’s noticeable that blaming the previous shower is losing its impact. Globetrotting and looking statesmanlike is not doing much for Starmer, blaming wars and outside factors? Well they haven’t really changed and they inherited a shambles. So what’s left? The easy target.
Why is it an easy target? Because unless you know what it is and what people do it’s just a bunch of faceless nobodies stealing a living. That’s what I thought before I worked in it. It is perfect? God no. There was much that needed improving in my time there, but I can say that anyone who thinks it was resistant to change any more than any other sector is wrong,
Just a view. |  | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 12:25 - Feb 15 with 257 views | DJR |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 19:23 - Feb 13 by Churchman |
DJR - thank you for your posts. The content is interesting, resonates with me and I can only echo what you have said.
I worked in the CS from 2003-2019 and in Whitehall 2006-2019 for HMRC and cross-government projects, one of which was front page news for a while, the other has been since 2016. I’ve seen what governments do closely enough and what the Civil Service does even closer.
The things to remember are that the Government create policy, the Civil Service implement it. Simple really. They also challenge it - not to overturn what ministers propose but to present to them such minor details as costs, potential revenues, possible political impact, resource requirements, timescales etc etc. The choice is then the Ministers.
At no time working in Whitehall did I hear political opinions expressed by Civil Servants. It was not part of the job or of any interest in the work environment.
What was part of the job was that a Civil Servants could not answer back, however rude, abusive or fundamentally wrong a Minister could be. That could include verbal abuse and worse. The only recourse, say a Director General, might have was to resign.
Civil Servants operate to a code. Politicians are meant to, but don’t and their behaviour appears to have deteriorated.
The Civil Service is an easy target. It’s noticeable that blaming the previous shower is losing its impact. Globetrotting and looking statesmanlike is not doing much for Starmer, blaming wars and outside factors? Well they haven’t really changed and they inherited a shambles. So what’s left? The easy target.
Why is it an easy target? Because unless you know what it is and what people do it’s just a bunch of faceless nobodies stealing a living. That’s what I thought before I worked in it. It is perfect? God no. There was much that needed improving in my time there, but I can say that anyone who thinks it was resistant to change any more than any other sector is wrong,
Just a view. |
Another thing that strikes me is that there is often a blank canvas for what the Civil Service is asked to do.
In this sense, comparisons with the private sector strike me as illusory. Sainsburys has been a retailer for over 100 years, so no wonder it is good at retailing. And if it goes into banking (Sainsburys Bank) it doesn't start from scratch but enters into a joint venture with the Bank of Scotland. Or in the case of general retailing, it takes over Argos.
My view is that the work of the civil service is pretty unique in the sense of having to go where no man has gone before, and it has to cope with ridiculously tight deadlines, and make the best of policy driven by politics which often doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Indeed, I am struggling to think of any policy introduced the the coalition government that stood the test of time, not least yet another reorganisation of the NHS that even the government recognised by didn't work when it sacked Lansley.*
But that wasn't the civil service's fault.
*This from the King's Fund
Far more important have been the massive organisational changes resulting from the Act. These changes have created a system of considerable complexity and confused accountabilities. Reforms that were intended to simplify and streamline the organisation of the NHS have had the opposite effect and have resulted in a vacuum in system leadership at a local as well as national level.
The organisational changes contained in the Act have been both damaging and distracting. Damage is evident in the serious fragmentation of commissioning, the bewildering complexity of regulation (to use the words of the Berwick review into patient safety), and the loss of continuity as leaders have been replaced and organisations have been restructured. Distraction has resulted from a requirement to undertake fundamental restructuring when there ought to have been a focus on improving patient care and delivering greater efficiency at a time of constrained budgets. [Post edited 15 Feb 12:33]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 12:46 - Feb 15 with 222 views | GlasgowBlue |
Well this is all very Trumpian.
"The group that helped to get Sir Keir Starmer elected as Labour leader hired lobbyists to investigate the personal, political and religious background of a Sunday Times journalist behind an article about secret donations that funded its work.
Labour Together paid £36,000 to Apco, a US public affairs firm, to examine the “backgrounds and motivations” of reporters behind a story before the general election.
The aim was to discredit The Sunday Times’s reporting by falsely suggesting its journalists might be part of a Russian conspiracy or had relied on emails hacked by the Kremlin.
Apco produced a 58-page report including almost ten pages of deeply personal and false claims about Gabriel Pogrund, the Sunday Times Whitehall editor. He and Harry Yorke, the newspaper’s deputy political editor, were named as “persons of significant interest”.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/po
[Post edited 15 Feb 13:08]
| |
| |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 13:28 - Feb 15 with 198 views | DJR |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 12:46 - Feb 15 by GlasgowBlue |
Well this is all very Trumpian.
"The group that helped to get Sir Keir Starmer elected as Labour leader hired lobbyists to investigate the personal, political and religious background of a Sunday Times journalist behind an article about secret donations that funded its work.
Labour Together paid £36,000 to Apco, a US public affairs firm, to examine the “backgrounds and motivations” of reporters behind a story before the general election.
The aim was to discredit The Sunday Times’s reporting by falsely suggesting its journalists might be part of a Russian conspiracy or had relied on emails hacked by the Kremlin.
Apco produced a 58-page report including almost ten pages of deeply personal and false claims about Gabriel Pogrund, the Sunday Times Whitehall editor. He and Harry Yorke, the newspaper’s deputy political editor, were named as “persons of significant interest”.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/po
[Post edited 15 Feb 13:08]
|
Can you understand now why I resigned from the Labour Party?
And the claim that Labour Together had spied on journalists and opponents first emerged in September but unsurprisingly got no coverage outside the National newspaper. And if you read the whole tweet you will see there was also a baseless Russian allegation. Holden was the source for information that appeared in the 2023 Sunday Times article.
Underhand things like this have been going on under Labour Together since 2017. And there are a lot of prominent MPs who were involved with the project from the start.
Below is what I posted before.
Labour Together remained a fairly shady and unknown organisation until it came out into open in 2023 when the following appeared on its website. Unsurprisingly, it no longer appears on its website but was captured by the Internet Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20 https:/labourtogether.uk/what-
"Labour Together was built by a group of MPs - Shabana Mahmood, Steve Reed, Bridget Philipson, Wes Streeting, Lucy Powell, Rachel Reeves, Jim McMahon, Jon Cruddas and Lisa Nandy - who wanted to see Labour back in power.
In Labour’s wilderness years, Labour Together fought to make the party electable again. In 2020, with Morgan McSweeney as Director, it united the party behind Keir Starmer’s leadership campaign. In the years since, Keir Starmer has reformed the party, placed the country’s interests at its heart, and put Labour on the path to power." [Post edited 15 Feb 17:15]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 16:01 - Feb 15 with 129 views | DJR |
I have managed to get access to the Sunday Times article and note it contains the following passages: I set them out because the article is paywalled.
"Labour Together engaged Apco in November 2023 when The Sunday Times revealed that the group had failed to declare £730,000 of donations between 2017 and 2020. The Electoral Commission found the group guilty of 20 breaches of campaign finance laws and issued a fine in 2021.
Apco also investigated Paul Holden, a South African investigative journalist who supplied material used in the Sunday Times story, and who recently published a book called The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy. It examined Matt Taibbi, an American reporter and writer, who had written articles with him. Harper wrote: “We have examined the sourcing, funding and origins of the Sunday Times story — plus the forthcoming works by Paul Holden and Matt Taibbi — to establish who and what are behind the attacks on Labour Together.
A shorter version of the report — stripped of the personal claims about Pogrund but with a section on “The Sunday Times article” — was shared with the National Cyber Security Centre, part of GCHQ, which declined to launch a full investigation.
Labour Together, however, used the fact of the GCHQ referral to create suspicion about the story and its sources, with cabinet ministers and special advisers among those who quietly alleged the report was linked to the Russian state.
Steve Reed, the housing secretary, and Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, were among the legal directors of Labour Together for most of the period in which funds were not reported. There is no suggestion they were responsible for compliance with electoral law at the time.
McSweeney has never publicly explained why he did not declare the donations [which amounted to £730,00]. Labour Together dismissed the matter as an “admin error”.
Internal emails published by the Conservatives last year reveal McSweeney was advised by a party lawyer to use this phrase if he could not give a better explanation.
The revelations pose questions of Starmer, who has spoken of the importance of press freedom. He has never spoken about his relationship with Labour Together or its donors such as Martin Taylor, a hedge fund manager who made his fortune at Nevsky Capital, a £1.5 billion Cayman Islands fund known for investing in Russian companies such as Gazprom, and Sir Trevor Chinn, a businessman.
The former Labour MP Jon Cruddas, who helped found Labour Together in 2015 [but had little subsequent involvement], told the investigative website Democracy for Sale that the revelations were “shocking” and “extraordinary”.
“I have heard of black briefings, but never heard of anything like this,” Cruddas said. “This is dark shit.”
Interestingly, Paul Holden has just appeared on LBC but it is troubling that his book received no reviews in the mainstream media and he got no traction before today, and that this aspect of the story has only emerged into the open after McSweeney's departure, when Holden raised it back in September.
To me it just shows how many media organisations and the like were willing to go along with and keep hidden what Labour Together was up to. But maybe now it is open season with the chief culprit now no longer there and Starmer being a lame duck. [Post edited 15 Feb 17:13]
| | | |
| Anas Sarwar, Labour leader in Scotland on 18:30 - Feb 15 with 79 views | DJR |
Interesting choice of words by Josh Simons in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/po
"No other British journalists were investigated in any document he or Labour Together ever received, said Simon."
That conveniently ignores Stamer's opponent in his seat at the general election, and the South African journalist Paul Holden and US journalist Matt Taibbi.
And it doesn't make it any better. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
