How is the Tory government doing?

Growing up throughout the 60's etc most people had allegencies to a political party one thing that remained constant no matter what your colour of your party was that a certain line couldn't be crossed any one crossing that line was forced to resign or did the decent thing. The public expected it the politicions fell on the sword.

So why is Boris Johnson or any front bench politician an exception to this have standards dropped so much that you can now insult, lie, consider to break the law, or beg money to decorate your flat etc. with no consequencies whatsoever. At what point is enough,enough ?

Political gossip over Boris future as PM!



The investigation to be undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary

Mr Case is the country's top ranking Civil Servant and completely impartial and of course leading a totally independent investigation - unless you are insinuating he is corrupt of course!!!

No I'm implying that he is Boris's senior policy adviser (formerly Boris's permanent secretary) who was appointed by ...erm... Boris to replace Sir Mark Sedwill 15 months ago.

Absolutely no conflict of interest there whatsoever.

But as the Paymaster General said, if anything illegal is found it will be taken out of his hands.

However that is extremely unlikely as the scope of the investigation will be set by ...erm... Boris's senior policy advisor.

wanderlust wrote:

Mr Case is the country's top ranking Civil Servant and completely impartial and of course leading a totally independent investigation - unless you are insinuating he is corrupt of course!!!

No I'm implying that he is Boris's senior policy adviser (formerly Boris's permanent secretary) who was appointed by ...erm... Boris to replace Sir Mark Sedwill 15 months ago.

Absolutely no conflict of interest there whatsoever.

But as the Paymaster General said, if anything illegal is found it will be taken out of his hands.

However that is extremely unlikely as the scope of the investigation will be set by ...erm... Boris's senior policy advisor.

Eh???

It doesn't work like that!

It's not a political appointment - and he's not Boris policy advisor as such - not in the sense you mean anyway - Ministers appoint their own special advisors - such as Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain.

I suspect the likes of Jack Doyle, Ed Oldfield and Allegra Stratton are/were Spad's too but I don't know for sure.

Special Advisors (Spad's)

"the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support [...] Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_adviser_(UK)

Simon Case is a Civil Servant and thus an employee of the Crown, not of Parliament - Boris can't choose his man (say like he did with Cummings and all his other Spad's) who he wants to appoint in this position - and as such his boss and loyalty is to the Queen (the state) not Boris Johnson - that's why he is a 'permanent' secretary - he will serve in that job until he retires - permanent secretaries don't come and go with each change in Prime Minister you know - well clearly you don't know!

Permanent secretary

Permanent secretaries are appointed under a scheme in which the prime minister has the final say in the recruitment process; the PM now chooses directly from a list created by the Civil Service Commissioners, rather than only having a veto over the Commissioners' preferred candidate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_secretary

Case answers to Parliament not to the Tory Party or Boris.

In simple terms his job is to implement the policy programme of the elected government (whatever party that may be) not to be a stooge to cover Johnson's back as you clearly are trying to make out.

God you really are warped and twisted with your hatred of all things Tory - as well as being completely ignorant as to how the whole government / constitutional system actually works - aren't you!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)

Possible replacements for Boris as PM:-

Javid was "too upset" by the ITV video to keep to his appointment to answer questions on Breakfast TV the following morning.

 Truss is apparently unable to define what a party is (!!) and was too busy to think of organising one for her own department last Christmas.

The options aren't great, are they?    So.....Gove, Patel, Raab, Sunak, Schapps?? Hmmm....
Hobson's choice!

Sluffy wrote:


Eh???

It doesn't work like that!

It's not a political appointment - and he's not Boris policy advisor as such - not in the sense you mean anyway - Ministers appoint their own special advisors - such as Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain.

I suspect the likes of Jack Doyle, Ed Oldfield and Allegra Stratton are/were Spad's too but I don't know for sure.

Special Advisors (Spad's)

"the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support [...] Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_adviser_(UK)

Simon Case is a Civil Servant and thus an employee of the Crown, not of Parliament - Boris can't choose his man (say like he did with Cummings and all his other Spad's) who he wants to appoint in this position - and as such his boss and loyalty is to the Queen (the state) not Boris Johnson - that's why he is a 'permanent' secretary - he will serve in that job until he retires - permanent secretaries don't come and go with each change in Prime Minister you know - well clearly you don't know!

Permanent secretary

Permanent secretaries are appointed under a scheme in which the prime minister has the final say in the recruitment process; the PM now chooses directly from a list created by the Civil Service Commissioners, rather than only having a veto over the Commissioners' preferred candidate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_secretary

Case answers to Parliament not to the Tory Party or Boris.

In simple terms his job is to implement the policy programme of the elected government (whatever party that may be) not to be a stooge to cover Johnson's back as you clearly are trying to make out.

God you really are warped and twisted with your hatred of all things Tory - as well as being completely ignorant as to how the whole government / constitutional system actually works - aren't you!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)

Just to add a bit of balance to Sluffy's rant, this is an interesting article on hte topic, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-cabinet-secretary-should-not-be-tasked-with-investigating-the-prime-minister/

Not one for the O'Brien haters but it made me laugh...

wessy wrote:Growing up throughout the 60's etc most people had allegencies to a political party one thing that remained constant no matter what your colour of your party was that a certain line couldn't be crossed any one crossing that line was forced to resign or did the decent thing. The public expected it the politicions fell on the sword.

So why is Boris Johnson or any front bench politician an exception to this have standards dropped so much that you can now insult, lie, consider to break the law, or beg money to decorate your flat etc. with no consequencies whatsoever. At what point is enough,enough ?

This is what I was trying to say Wessy - populism is complex.

Perhaps "forgiving the unforgiveable" is because the original message is so vague and emotive that folk heard what they want to hear e.g. I don't believe that folk who voted for Brexit and/or Boris's "get Brexit done" electoral campaign voted for the same reasons as each other - they took from it what they wanted whether that was immigration or perceived bureaucracy or extra funding for the NHS or the belief that the UK would be economically stronger outside the EU?
Perhaps it's because folk have committed to those vague concepts and are now unwilling to admit they were wrong and are still hoping that the part of it they voted for will still be delivered so they'll stick with the government regardless of what they do?
Perhaps as O'Brien points out it's the absence of a credible opposition?
Perhaps it's simply moral decline?

I personally think that one of the main drivers WAS - and I mean was not is - that the Brexit/Get Brexit done campaigns were underpinned by a pseudo-revolutionary psyche - almost a "the people versus the establishment" idea - wherein a lot of folk actually believed they were changing the world forever by getting one over on "them" i.e. the wokes/the lefties/the EU oligarchs etc. Ironically, they replaced one set of "establishment" figures with a weaker one - but at least it's "their establishment" now.

The line was crossed in 2016 when there was no sanction on the lies used in the political campaign to get us out of Europe. Even though they admitted they were lies nobody "fell on their sword" and nobody cared because those who had swallowed them claimed democracy had been served - which with a campaign of unsanctioned lies it clearly hadn't been - so it's difficult to imagine that the the same people who railroaded Brexit through will be willing to sanction what the government is currently doing and nobody is going to resign unless there is a public outcry.

Whatever the reason, I think the reality of politics (as opposed to the pipedream they were sold) is slowly starting to dawn on even the least knowledgeable voters and the more that people see that they've been sold a pup, the more likely a public outcry.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Just to add a bit of balance to Sluffy's rant, this is an interesting article on hte topic, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-cabinet-secretary-should-not-be-tasked-with-investigating-the-prime-minister/

My rant...?

Yeah right if you say so...

If it was anything it was more to do with my exasperation with a person clearly ignorant of any knowledge or understanding of how the system works, who holds a deep rooted hatred of the Tory government or what ever they do and believes what he reads on social media to be the truth.

If that's not enough he holds a psychotic hatred of being proved to be wrong in anything he says or does and invariably digs a bigger hole for himself trying to get out of the hole he's dug for himself in the first place!

His view of 'reality' and actual reality is often far apart - for instance in the last few days alone he's told us that the Government controls the press (how laughable is that claim at the moment!!!) and now the top Civil Servant in the country has been 'handpicked' and appointed by Boris simply in order to be his lacky and to cover his back, such as in this instance!!!

That's the sort of person I'm replying to!!!

Anyway fwiw I agree with the views of the link you posted to.

Unfortunately though although the academic line of thinking is correct the reality in situ that the Cabinet Secretary really has to face is much different in real life.

As always real life is not black or white, it is somewhere in-between, so you take many factors into account in your decisions and actions - you can't always get them spot on all of the time.

Case is head of the Civil Service but doesn't have the same authority over Spads. - Johnson is the boss of those in the Cabinet Office.

If the parties took place (well we know they did but they are yet to be formally stated as so) then who attended them?

If they were predominately Spads (and it looks at least that the 'main' people leading them were Spads) and the PM really didn't know that the events took place (hard to believe but possible) then what should Case do?

In a perfect world he should report it and fight to see all those responsible are disciplined but if the PM doesn't do anything then all he achieves is a further widening of the gap between himself and the Spads.

He could discipline those SC's who attended but they could rightly point out that the Spad's who attended also, received no sanctions for doing so whatsoever.

This would also widen the gap and relationship between the daily workings of the CS and Spads in the office.

Whilst clearly breaking the rules with the party, all these people probably worked closely together on that day before the event and the following days thereafter.

When do you call something illegal if up to 5pm say everybody is working together legally but at 5:01pm the same people in the same office are now breaking the rules because they put a party hat on?

I don't know what happened but I certainly wouldn't have blown the whistle in Case's position if that's how the scenario he faced was, I'd probably would have sent an email round the following day to all CS's reminding them of what Covid rules applied at that time.

What I'm attempting to do above is to show how life isn't as clear cut as one would like it to be.

Let's now look at if Case refused to lead the investigation.

I'm sure before it even starts that he's made it his job to know exactly what happened, who was there and if Johnson knew or not.

It seems to me that Johnson probably didn't at the time and may even not have known when ITV broke the story but relied on what he was told by his Spad's (particularly the bloke before Doyle who left months ago) - I'm sure he found out since though but had already dug a hole for himself and tried to bluff his way out.

Johnson clearly thought all this would blow over - and even now I think that will happen.

The key issue in all of this is whether Johnson deliberately lied to Parliament and it is looking for now that he didn't - he told the house what he had been told himself.

That being true (if it is) it then would then not create a problem for Case to undertake the investigation - or Johnson to ask him to do so.

However if Case knows that to be a lie then he must either refuse to lead the investigation and resign - and we all know what message that would have sent, undertake the investigation and (in my words lie) which he wouldn't do (does anyone really think someone somewhere wouldn't leak the real truth?), or report the truth which would sink Johnson.

It's all looking to me that the party (which was wrong - I'm not saying other) was a misjudgement but well meaning intention from senior Spads saying thank you to their colleagues (both other Spads and CS staff) for the work they had done over the year - and was held in a setting that people worked within on a daily basis at that time and in a sort of informal bubble they already had.

That Case probably soon got to be aware of it but considered it to late to do much about it other than cause unnecessary conflict within the offices if he made a formal complaint to Johnson about it and decided to let it pass (maybe sending a reminder memo to his staff perhaps, or something similar?).

The real problem and why all this has snowballed is because of Johnson's behaviour over the last week - insisting a party that he claims never happened abided by all the Covid rules at the time!!!

What a ridiculous thing to say - and keep on repeating!!!

He should simply have have said he's been informed that no party took place but will look into it - that would have allowed the truth to come out and he could have sacked those Spad's who deliberately misled him.

Clearly to me there's a bit running more deeper in all of this, in that the Spad's mentioned - Doyle, Oldfield, Stratton are the ones that Carrie favoured when she got rid of Cummings and Cain.

I'm thinking that Johnson was trying hard not to end up sacking some/all of them - which I imagine might be the outcome in all of this anyway.

I thought this was all very interesting and informative -

This is the inside story of the No.10 Christmas Party scoops. @PippaCrerar broke the story, @PaulBrandITV obtained the leaked video. Here’s how they did it – as told to me on the Media Show on @BBCRadio4. pic.twitter.com/LIlI3CGuYZ

— Ros Atkins (@BBCRosAtkins) December 9, 2021

Bercow nails it....

Spot on Sluffy, BoJo’s reluctance to act is entirely because he would have to fire Carries chums. Ever since that woman got her claws into Boris it’s been problematic, naïve and nonsensical. We’ll now it’s come home to roost and I’d like to think that Boris might have the guts to tell Carrie to keep her neb out of the politics and concentrate on looking after all the sprigs BoJo is intent on inflicting on the worlds ever expanding population. Boris, if you survive and I suspect you will, please dispense with all these pseudo liberal idiots you’ve surrounded yourself with and recruit some seasoned and more experienced Conservative advisers instead.

Whitesince63 wrote:Ever since that woman got her claws into Boris it’s been problematic, naïve and nonsensical. 

Think you'll find he's always been problematic, naive and nonsensical.

wanderlust wrote:Bercow nails it....

Wow Lusty, just like ITV you’re really scraping the barrel now. How can that sneaky, self possessed, dishonest little turd who tried everything and more in his supposedly impartial position in the house to undo the Brexit vote criticise anyone for being dishonest? He even quotes Major, another two faced duplicitous little cretin and arguably one of the worst PM’s we’ve ever had, as being a model of perfection. I know you hate the Tories but surely even you can’t stoop this low??

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Think you'll find he's always been problematic, naive and nonsensical.

They’re well matched then Troy?

My thoughts on Brexit were that the vote happened, it was wrong, damaging and the electorate were lied to - but we couldn’t go back on it. 

Bercow (and many others) clearly took the view that if they possibly could stop it happening then the responsible thing was to try and do so - given how damaging they thought it would end up being.

I can’t blame him for that, and I’m surprised it’s him you describe as a cretin and not the likes of Boris who lied through their teeth to win your vote.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:My thoughts on Brexit were that the vote happened, it was wrong, damaging and the electorate were lied to - but we couldn’t go back on it. 

Bercow (and many others) clearly took the view that if they possibly could stop it happening then the responsible thing was to try and do so - given how damaging they thought it would end up being.

I can’t blame him for that, and I’m surprised it’s him you describe as a cretin and not the likes of Boris who lied through their teeth to win your vote.

Fwiw I agree with you on all of that and would only add that Brexit only came about and Johnson only was able to become the PM simply due to the two rules of politics - (a) namely Cameron only had the referendum in the first place because he didn't think people would vote for Brexit and he would gain the power within his party to finally deal with the Eurosceptic trouble makers and (b) Johnson only chose to head up the Brexit side not because he believed in it or even thought he would win - but by doing so he believed he would get the Eurosceptic vote at some future challenge to become the Tory leader - never dreaming it would happen so quickly!

There was absolutely no reason for Brexit to have happened at all other than two people, were simply building up their own power bases within the Conservative party at that time.

And people wonder why I have absolutely no time for politics - they really are all as bad as each other.

Perhaps I should also have added that Corbyn was conspicuous by his (and therefore the Labour Party's) total lack of getting behind the Remain campaign - I can only conclude that Corbyn personally was happy if Brexit occurred (although I doubt he believed it would) and didn't want to stand on the same platform as Cameron and his Labour Party colleagues who were active for the Remain Campaign?

What a disaster in the end all caused by the three biggest clowns of the last decade - Cameron (we saw his true colours since in respect of Greensill), Johnson (we all know his true colours already) and Corbyn (with his anti Semitism and bonkers left wing beliefs!).

We actually do get what we deserve allowing people like those to become leaders of our two main national political parties!!!

I wish people would stop throwing accusations of anti Semitism about. I myself was accused of it, which led to my leaving the party in bitter circumstances. This despite my association with the Anne Frank Trust.
The trust will be having its annual lunch in January to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, and the 75th anniversary of the publication of Anne's diary.
Guest speaker will be Joanna Lumley, and someone who can't yet be named for security reasons.
Not sure a trip to London is on this year, but you never know.