Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
rick_chasey said:
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?
Even the Express thinks it's a good appointment.
The 'outrage' is Johnsonian deflection: he doesn't care if it harms the Tory Party, as it was only ever about him.0 -
I'm more surprised that Sue Gray accepted the role than Starmer offered it.0
-
As posted previously, she'd been blocked from a promotion by Simon Case so was probably leaving the civil service anyway.TheBigBean said:I'm more surprised that Sue Gray accepted the role than Starmer offered it.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
TheBigBean said:
I'm more surprised that Sue Gray accepted the role than Starmer offered it.
See the Express article, amongst others: it's suggesting that she felt hard done by by Simon Case blocking her promotion in the CS, and this way she protentially gets herself to the heart of government. I'd also think it's a very interesting job prospect.0 -
Yes, Simon Case never seems to come out smelling of roses whenever his name crops up. Nonetheless, she had other options such as waiting it out.rjsterry said:
As posted previously, she'd been blocked from a promotion by Simon Case so was probably leaving the civil service anyway.TheBigBean said:I'm more surprised that Sue Gray accepted the role than Starmer offered it.
0 -
no, the duty of the civil service is to act in accordance with the law, not twist it to suit political endskingstongraham 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?
if a government is led by liars and traitors, it is the legal duty of civil servants to resist, not collaborate
plenty of ex-democracies show the outcome if public bodies fail in this duty
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
TheBigBean said:
Yes, Simon Case never seems to come out smelling of roses whenever his name crops up. Nonetheless, she had other options such as waiting it out.rjsterry said:
As posted previously, she'd been blocked from a promotion by Simon Case so was probably leaving the civil service anyway.TheBigBean said:I'm more surprised that Sue Gray accepted the role than Starmer offered it.
The same mud was going to be slung by Johnson and his diminishing bunch of acolytes if she had waited, because that's how they work. As it is, Acoba will dictate the timescale, and then she can get to work.0 -
The answer is no.rjsterry said:
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?
As to why, I explained above the the optics could be bad and create bad press for him/Labour, hence the question over his judgment if what he did caused that to happen as he should have foreseen that.
If it was a civil servant who had undertaken an investigation into some alleged Labour party scandal and was later hired by the Tory leader, I'm pretty sure the reaction on here would have been rather different."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We already know what press it has created: general acceptance that it's fine with the exceptions being people who would denounce Starmer if he'd just rescued a family from a burning building. As has been pointed out above, incoming parties often hire a top civil servant from the previous administration. Starmer is just taking an early opportunity. I never understand why you think this place is full of Labour supporters. I'm not particularly looking forward to a Starmer government, I've never voted for them and many others have said they have voted Conservative many times in the past. But I can see which way the wind is blowing.Stevo_666 said:
The answer is no.rjsterry said:
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?
As to why, I explained above the the optics could be bad and create bad press for him/Labour, hence the question over his judgment if what he did caused that to happen as he should have foreseen that.
If it was a civil servant who had undertaken an investigation into some alleged Labour party scandal and was later hired by the Tory leader, I'm pretty sure the reaction on here would have been rather different.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The irony here is that if Sunak had a Damascene conversion and started making noises about rejoining the SM & CU, whilst Starmer clings to the 'no way' mantra, not only would it be a return to Thatcherite thinking, but it would, I suspect, make a few (or more) Cakestoppers think twice about who to support. But as long as the Tories are beholden to the ERG & Farage doctrine, anything is better.
Sunak needs to cleanse the party of the Johnson tribe for starters, to make themselves electable. Johnson's no Tory. Sunak could do that by casting him adrift now by declaring his confidence in Gray's report and the Select Committee's status. His current silence reflects his weakness, and he's squandering his mini NIP bounce.0 -
Enjoying the reaction to the Pippa Crearer tweet on Sue Gray's career break as a pub landlady in Newry during the Troubles
My favourite was
"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Landlady on career break"“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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 -
You don't want them to be pretending to be impartial while working to eject the properly elected party in power.sungod said:
no, the duty of the civil service is to act in accordance with the law, not twist it to suit political endskingstongraham 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?
if a government is led by liars and traitors, it is the legal duty of civil servants to resist, not collaborate
plenty of ex-democracies show the outcome if public bodies fail in this duty0 -
This is irrelevant as Sue Gray has to leave the civil service to take up Starmer's offer.kingstongraham said:
You don't want them to be pretending to be impartial while working to eject the properly elected party in power.sungod said:
no, the duty of the civil service is to act in accordance with the law, not twist it to suit political endskingstongraham 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?
if a government is led by liars and traitors, it is the legal duty of civil servants to resist, not collaborate
plenty of ex-democracies show the outcome if public bodies fail in this dutyThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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 -
Yes, Rossendale and Darwen. Areas struggling under the status quo, high immigrant populations and openly racist sentiment quite evident.tailwindhome said:
Exactly the sort of areas that need governments to see people as a resource rather than a burden.
To some degree, i understand the argument against a stability government but who is a disruptive candidate?
Bojo pretends to be a disruptor but is a self servant. Farage pretends to be a disruptor but is a self server. Sunak is himself a stability candidate.
How do the Tories manage to blame the opposition for the mess they’ve made?0 -
The optics didn’t end up being at all bad. Therefore Starmer exhibited good judgement. I think that’s the logical conclusion.Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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.
Could be too early to tell, of course…
I’m amused by the concern for Starmer’s reputation.0 -
Good try. If you don't understand the point you cant be wrong, you just haven't understood. Re read my posts above as I've already explained the point - if you still don't understand then I'm not really bothered.rick_chasey said:
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Thats a matter of opinion. I'm sure lefties will say he exhibited good judgment.pinkbikini said:
The optics didn’t end up being at all bad. Therefore Starmer exhibited good judgement. I think that’s the logical conclusion.Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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.
Could be too early to tell, of course…
I’m amused by the concern for Starmer’s reputation."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You never said anything!Stevo_666 said:
Good try. If you don't understand the point you cant be wrong, you just haven't understood. Re read my posts above as I've already explained the point - if you still don't understand then I'm not really bothered.rick_chasey said:
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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 -
They've even infiltrated the Telegraph and the Express.rjsterry said:
They're EVERYWHERE!ddraver said:These lefties you speak of, are they in the room with us right now?
Will the horror ever end?!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't think you've explained why you think it's a mistake other than saying optics.Stevo_666 said:
Good try. If you don't understand the point you cant be wrong, you just haven't understood. Re read my posts above as I've already explained the point - if you still don't understand then I'm not really bothered.rick_chasey said:
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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 -
Even the optics I don’t understand.kingstongraham said:
I don't think you've explained why you think it's a mistake other than saying optics.Stevo_666 said:
Good try. If you don't understand the point you cant be wrong, you just haven't understood. Re read my posts above as I've already explained the point - if you still don't understand then I'm not really bothered.rick_chasey said:
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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 -
i'm quite enjoying the optics of erg/gammon snowflakes trying to smear someone who demonstrably went easy* on their ex-leader and his croniesrick_chasey said:
Even the optics I don’t understand.kingstongraham said:
I don't think you've explained why you think it's a mistake other than saying optics.Stevo_666 said:
Good try. If you don't understand the point you cant be wrong, you just haven't understood. Re read my posts above as I've already explained the point - if you still don't understand then I'm not really bothered.rick_chasey said:
So can you explain how I’m wrong?Stevo_666 said:
You've already done it yourself by saying that you genuinely can't see any problem.rick_chasey said:
Apparently not. Spell it out like I’m stupid.Stevo_666 said:
I thought you were a sharp political operator?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.
*grey chose to not even investigate some ostensibly illegal gatherings in no. 10, and chose to report in generalities, she's hardly the witchfinder general
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Imagine if she'd gone for a cushy job with the Tories after doing that report.0
