Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Stevo_666 said:
I rest my case about your rabid feelings.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
The main point of debate is about Starmers judgment, not about Boris. I think Brian let his rabid anti Boris feelings take him off on a tangent.rjsterry said:
He'd clearly like to be and lots of his colleagues clearly agree. And getting it into the news only reminds everyone about last year, which helps Starmer. As posted above, she's that good that any minister or shadow cabinet would want to hire her. Badenoch was trying to hire her on Gove's recommendation but Simon Case blocked it. Sunak didn't intervene and now they've lost her from the Civil Service altogether, which is a bit of a f***-up.Stevo_666 said:
So what? That's not the point and Johnson isn't front bench any more.briantrumpet said:
It got Johnson and his lying & lawbreaking back in the headlines.Stevo_666 said:
It is a bit naiveof him isn't it.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.
Yes, apologies for hating the lazy, unprincipled, law-breaking liar, but it wasn't a tangent: in one fell swoop he's got himself a CoS who, according to Tories (well, untill yesterday) is an extremely capable and principled woman, and at the same time brought Johnson's serial lying and law-breaking back into the headlines. Savvy, rather than naïve, I'd say.
Getting back on topic, what do you think about Strmers judgment in this case?
Just glad you keep on bringing up Johnson (you don't have to make a case, as I happily admit it), as he's turned into one of Starmer's electoral assets, and it gives me another chance to mention his failings (and by extension, those of the Tory Party that so loved him). Starmer doesn't have to do much whilst Oakeshott is exposing the shambles there (in the name of anti-lockdown campaigning) and keeping all the old wounds festering in public view.
But Gray looks like a canny appointment, and for once, I agree with the Express on that front.0 -
I don't think it does call his judgement into question. The only people pushing the deluded conspiracy angle are a handful of diehard Johnson loyalists who spend more time on niche TV channels than they do in Parliament. Johnson literally asked for Gray to produce the report and accepted its findings. A year after she was appointed she's looking for a new job. Where's the conflict of interest?Stevo_666 said:
If you say so. I'm not sure that making a major appointment which calls into question your judgment was done mainly because it was thought to be a good day to bury good news.rjsterry said:
If you say so. I think Starmer's capitalised on the situation. She would have very likely been working for him anyway in a few months time. Now Johnson is all over the front pages again just when Sunak had something positive to talk about.Stevo_666 said:
The main point of debate is about Starmers judgment, not about Boris. I think Brian let his rabid anti Boris feelings take him off on a tangent.rjsterry said:
He'd clearly like to be and lots of his colleagues clearly agree. And getting it into the news only reminds everyone about last year, which helps Starmer. As posted above, she's that good that any minister or shadow cabinet would want to hire her. Badenoch was trying to hire her on Gove's recommendation but Simon Case blocked it. Sunak didn't intervene and now they've lost her from the Civil Service altogether, which is a bit of a f***-up.Stevo_666 said:
So what? That's not the point and Johnson isn't front bench any more.briantrumpet said:
It got Johnson and his lying & lawbreaking back in the headlines.Stevo_666 said:
It is a bit naiveof him isn't it.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are you suggesting that in retrospect she seemed unduly harsh on Boris in some way in that investigation?Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?0 -
I'm not expressing a view on that, just talking about how others might perceive the appointment. You did ask above why Starmer did this, so what are your concerns here?kingstongraham said:
Are you suggesting that in retrospect she seemed unduly harsh on Boris in some way in that investigation?Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But given that civil servants have to work under the government of the day regardless of colour, they are generally people capable of working with a high degree of objectivity.Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?
They will all have their own political views. Providing they do not evidently impact their ability to do their job, they are irrelevant.
She is leaving and can take any position she likes, the burden of proof lies with any complainant to prove her findings were not objective while carrying out her role in the enquiry.
Optics have limited importance. You want them to be good but sometimes you accept they won’t necessarily be as you can’t keep everybody happy. A strong recruit trumps a bit of moaning from the opposite party. Especially one that has trashed standards of behaviour at every opportunity.0 -
Can someone please explain why this makes people question his judgment as I really don’t understand.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.1 -
Read the posts above. Or DYOR.rick_chasey said:
Can someone please explain why this makes people question his judgment as I really don’t understand.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So why the big stir in the media if optics aren't important?morstar said:
But given that civil servants have to work under the government of the day regardless of colour, they are generally people capable of working with a high degree of objectivity.Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?
They will all have their own political views. Providing they do not evidently impact their ability to do their job, they are irrelevant.
She is leaving and can take any position she likes, the burden of proof lies with any complainant to prove her findings were not objective while carrying out her role in the enquiry.
Optics have limited importance. You want them to be good but sometimes you accept they won’t necessarily be as you can’t keep everybody happy. A strong recruit trumps a bit of moaning from the opposite party. Especially one that has trashed standards of behaviour at every opportunity."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
So why the big stir in the media if optics aren't important?morstar said:
But given that civil servants have to work under the government of the day regardless of colour, they are generally people capable of working with a high degree of objectivity.Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?
They will all have their own political views. Providing they do not evidently impact their ability to do their job, they are irrelevant.
She is leaving and can take any position she likes, the burden of proof lies with any complainant to prove her findings were not objective while carrying out her role in the enquiry.
Optics have limited importance. You want them to be good but sometimes you accept they won’t necessarily be as you can’t keep everybody happy. A strong recruit trumps a bit of moaning from the opposite party. Especially one that has trashed standards of behaviour at every opportunity.
Because they've got papers to sell. The only people who are pushing the 'optics' here are the likes of Johnson, Dorries and Rees Mogg. I suspect that Sunak would like them to shut up and go away, as it's only dragging Tories generally back in to the mire which I suspect they'd hoped they'd escaped.0 -
No one has explained it on the thread and I’ve read up on it and I can only see it making his judgement better?Stevo_666 said:
Read the posts above. Or DYOR.rick_chasey said:
Can someone please explain why this makes people question his judgment as I really don’t understand.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.
I genuinely can’t see it.0 -
So you're worried about what stupid people might think?Stevo_666 said:
I'm not expressing a view on that, just talking about how others might perceive the appointment. You did ask above why Starmer did this, so what are your concerns here?kingstongraham said:
Are you suggesting that in retrospect she seemed unduly harsh on Boris in some way in that investigation?Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rick_chasey said:
No one has explained it on the thread and I’ve read up on it and I can only see it making his judgement better?Stevo_666 said:
Read the posts above. Or DYOR.rick_chasey said:
Can someone please explain why this makes people question his judgment as I really don’t understand.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.
I genuinely can’t see it.
It's conspiracy theory stuff, that Gray is some leftie mole. GB News actually took down tweets suggesting as much.
0 -
-
No more than I worry about what what condescending people think. Why do you think I am worrying?rjsterry said:
So you're worried about what stupid people might think?Stevo_666 said:
I'm not expressing a view on that, just talking about how others might perceive the appointment. You did ask above why Starmer did this, so what are your concerns here?kingstongraham said:
Are you suggesting that in retrospect she seemed unduly harsh on Boris in some way in that investigation?Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't see the big deal to be honest.
If the argument is that her report was biased, why did Boris claim it exonerated him, and do you want a fresh investigation?
If the argument is that she has information on the Tories, well what is it that she know you don't want made public?
Tbh the best response from Sunak is not to get sucked into nonsense, thank her for her public service, wish her well in her future endeavours and let ACOBA decide an appropriate length of garden leave
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's a bit like Shami Chakrabarti and Corbyn. I couldn't get too excited by that, but plenty of people did.rick_chasey said:
No one has explained it on the thread and I’ve read up on it and I can only see it making his judgement better?Stevo_666 said:
Read the posts above. Or DYOR.rick_chasey said:
Can someone please explain why this makes people question his judgment as I really don’t understand.surrey_commuter said:
I could not think less of the Boris or his supporters but this makes me question Starmer's judgementJezyboy said:
I'm not entirely sure it matters?kingstongraham said:
Do you think she'll ever do the job?Jezyboy said:The above is why it's maybe not such a bad move.
If the Conservatives kick up a fuss about the report being a stitch up...it's a really pathetic look. I think given the toothless nature of the report, they would do well to keep quiet.
It might play well to their base, but they really need to start growing the base quickly.
I genuinely can’t see it.0 -
Going to have to join Rick here...
Steven's bias is obvious but can anyone else who thinks this calls his judgment into question tell me why?
In a week where, for the first time in years, the Tories have quietly achieved something sensible in Northern Ireland, Starmer has bagged himself an excellent chief of staff and set the tories a trap that they have walked into like lambs.
If this is "bad judgement", I'd hate to see.....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
We're into "Some people are saying..." and "Just asking questions" territory.1
-
It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.0 -
0
-
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.0 -
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.0 -
Sure, that’s why he’s actually electable, right?kingstongraham said:
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.0 -
If you say so.rick_chasey said:
Sure, that’s why he’s actually electable, right?kingstongraham said:
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.0 -
Other than tinfoil hat stuff there’s nothing.kingstongraham said:
If you say so.rick_chasey said:
Sure, that’s why he’s actually electable, right?kingstongraham said:
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.
Surely someone who has not been in government hiring someone who is one of the best operators in the civil service is entirely sensible?
Especially one who clearly is not interested in one party over another.
You want your government to work with the civil services, not against?
Can you be more specific with your criticism?0 -
He's not the government. You want your civil service to work with the government, not looking to have them kicked out.rick_chasey said:
Other than tinfoil hat stuff there’s nothing.kingstongraham said:
If you say so.rick_chasey said:
Sure, that’s why he’s actually electable, right?kingstongraham said:
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.
Surely someone who has not been in government hiring someone who is one of the best operators in the civil service is entirely sensible?
Especially one who clearly is not interested in one party over another.
You want your government to work with the civil services, not against?
Can you be more specific with your criticism?0 -
I was asking if you were worried. You said the appointment brought into question Starmer's judgement because the appointment might look bad to some unspecified other people. Given what information is in the public domain, I think you'd have to be a bit daft to think that there really was any substance behind the ridiculous claims that Gray is some sort of Labour mole in the civil service. I mean, is Kemi Badenoch a Labour mole, too because she was trying to hire Gray as well?Stevo_666 said:
No more than I worry about what what condescending people think. Why do you think I am worrying?rjsterry said:
So you're worried about what stupid people might think?Stevo_666 said:
I'm not expressing a view on that, just talking about how others might perceive the appointment. You did ask above why Starmer did this, so what are your concerns here?kingstongraham said:
Are you suggesting that in retrospect she seemed unduly harsh on Boris in some way in that investigation?Stevo_666 said:
It's not about her capability, or mine. It's about how it might be perceived given her role in the 'Partygate' investigation. As I'm sure you're aware, the optics can be important in politics.morstar said:Given that you seem to be capable at your job based on what you say Stevo…
Has your political opinion ever stopped you being capable?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You don’t think with the poll lead labour have it makes sense to start preparing for government?kingstongraham said:
He's not the government. You want your civil service to work with the government, not looking to have them kicked out.rick_chasey said:
Other than tinfoil hat stuff there’s nothing.kingstongraham said:
If you say so.rick_chasey said:
Sure, that’s why he’s actually electable, right?kingstongraham said:
Completely part of the established order, with no ambition to change anything, with the civil service as willing helpers, potentially aiding him from within.rick_chasey said:
Can people stop talking in euphemisms. What does “makes him look like just one of those politicians” mean?kingstongraham said:It just smells bad.
Makes him look like just one of those politicians. She'd better be really good at this job to be worth it.
If she is worth it, now is the right time, because this johnson stuff is going to drag on for months.
Surely someone who has not been in government hiring someone who is one of the best operators in the civil service is entirely sensible?
Especially one who clearly is not interested in one party over another.
You want your government to work with the civil services, not against?
Can you be more specific with your criticism?
What do you want instead, them to wing it?0
