Readers react to the Conservative party’s attempts to discredit the civil servant after it was revealed that she was going to be Keir Starmer’s chief of staff

The appointment of Sue Gray as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff (Boris Johnson allies furious as Keir Starmer hires Sue Gray as chief of staff, 2 March) can be interpreted in one of three ways: 1) Her appointment makes her retrospectively unfit to conduct an inquiry into (inter alia) Boris Johnson’s behaviour; 2) What she saw in her inquiry, as a civil servant of the highest integrity, has made her keen to work with a cleaner alternative; 3) The inquiry and her appointment are unrelated.

The first interpretation, the Moggist (Jacobean) view, is interesting. Presumably it means that any minister who subsequently takes a job in the private sector with any link of any sort to his previous ministry was unfit to do their ministerial job. Maybe it even means that Lord David Frost, who became a Tory minister, was unfit to be a civil servant. It certainly means that Dido Harding, as a Tory peer, should not have been appointed to a non-partisan job as head of NHS test and trace.
Calum Paton
Emeritus professor of public policy, Keele University

Continue reading…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Identical twins are not so identical, study suggests

Research finds they differ by an average of 5.2 early mutations, adding…

Locals ‘complained for years’ about road flooding where Liverpool couple died

Residents say council ignored pleas to fix road which slopes in both…

The Psychedelic Drug Trial review – a mind-bending magic mushroom mission

Helmed by Prof David Nutt, this documentary follows volunteers as they swap…

Rishi Sunak hints at suspension to pension triple lock

Chancellor refuses to say whether guarantee introduced in 2010 will be honoured…