View previous topic | View next topic

Priti Awful

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

jaygeemack
1365926.  Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:54 pm Reply with quote

After an independent investigation concluded that Priti Patel is guilty of bullying, BJ and PP decide to ignore it and PP stays in post. It now it transpires that BJ tried to influence the outcome of the investigation. Is this government completely devoid of any morality and principle?

 
tetsabb
1365932.  Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:29 pm Reply with quote

Yes.

 
Celebaelin
1365937.  Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:46 pm Reply with quote

There are so many sets of double standards being applied here I'm unsure where to set up stall.

If a male cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of sexist bias, insensitivity and worse. Does the fact that the somewhat gaffe prone* Priti Patel remains in office mean that being female grants (or can grant) immunity from pesky things like rules of conduct?

I'm inclined towards the notion that the importance of limits on 'managerial style' are over-empahasised and the efficacy of an individual in a given position is of higher importance - within certain limits at least. I am however very far from being in the majority on that and it seems to me that were PP male she'd be long gone by now. If BJ thinks she's doing a good job at the Home Office should he be allowed to keep her in place there? Possibly, but I think we all recognise that this bump in the road means her days there will be cut rather shorter than they may otherwise have been. Judging from the current Prime Ministerial approach@ it will be viewed as another weight added to the balance of convenience and inconvenience rather than an absolute deal breaker; this is a methodology unseen in politics for some decades now.

* for which read 'unpopular with the Civil Service'; but that in itself is hardly a glowing recommendation for a cabinet post

@ current rumours lead us to wonder just how personal these assessments of positive/negative contribution are but that element may be a smoke screen for a more rational decision; let us hope so.

 
franticllama
1365951.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:22 am Reply with quote

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that she's being protected simply because she's female?

My personal view is that she hasn't been fired because Johnson simply doesn't care about the small matter of what's right or wrong. Plus, she worships at the alter of Brexit and therefore is one of the few remaining people he can appoint to a significant post. You only need to look at both Gavin Williamson and Robert Jennrick to see examples of men who really should no longer be in cabinet positions and yet are.

 
Celebaelin
1365955.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:27 am Reply with quote

franticllama wrote:
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that she's being protected simply because she's female?

I didnít draw a conclusion I made an assertion and then asked a question.

Celebaelin wrote:
If a male cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of sexist bias, insensitivity and worse. Does the fact that the somewhat gaffe prone Priti Patel remains in office mean that being female grants (or can grant) immunity from pesky things like rules of conduct?

Your opinion is that she remains in her position because sheís pro-Brexit. Thatís fair enough but if I may pose another question:
Where are the complaints that would normally abound were a minister to keep their position following an official rebuke? Where are the commentaries about how unacceptable it is in the modern workplace that a minister should fulfil her role using the methodology of the bully?

franticllama wrote:
You only need to look at both Gavin Williamson and Robert Jennrick to see examples of men who really should no longer be in cabinet positions and yet are.

The issue is not one of competence, less still competence in the face of the unprecedented circumstances of COVID, or of whether one should seek funding approval from another MP who might be seen to be operating in a tit for tat manner. The issue is that PP remains in office while the standards chief Sir Alex Allan who was tasked with investigatating her and found her behaviour short of the required standard has resigned in a move calculated to draw attention to the fact that she remains in office.

In any event choosing to try and deflect attention elsewhere is dodging the question of her suitability for a ministerial post not answering it.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1365959.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:31 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
franticllama wrote:
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that she's being protected simply because she's female?

I didnít draw a conclusion I made an assertion and then asked a question.

Celebaelin wrote:
If a male cabinet minister had been retained in his position after being condemned for breaching the ministerial code there would be a tumult of cries of sexist bias, insensitivity and worse. Does the fact that the somewhat gaffe prone Priti Patel remains in office mean that being female grants (or can grant) immunity from pesky things like rules of conduct?

The assertion you made was that the reaction would have been different if she was a man. The question would not have been asked without the preceding assertion, so to claim that youíre just asking a question is rubbish. The section of your post that you quoted is sexist. There must be a reason why youíre not able to see that...

 
Leith
1365965.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:16 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
Where are the complaints that would normally abound were a minister to keep their position following an official rebuke? Where are the commentaries about how unacceptable it is in the modern workplace that a minister should fulfil her role using the methodology of the bully?

They are everywhere. The BBC list a fair few complaints just from among her own colleagues, so you can probably imagine what those not politically aligned with Patel are saying:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55026137

John Bercow faced similar complaints over comparable allegations at the beginning of the year and I suspect the responses were similarly strident or muted according to allegence (with him and with his perceived position on Brexit)

 
Celebaelin
1365978.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:13 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
...to claim that youíre just asking a question is rubbish.

It is self evident from both your post and mine I did not claim to be 'just' asking a question.
Alfred E Neuman wrote:
The section of your post that you quoted is sexist. There must be a reason why youíre not able to see that...

If you are saying that there is no disparity between the handling of this story and how it would be presented in the media if the Home Secretary were male then I disagree. I have not seen any direct criticism of PP from third parties in the media as I would and have in similar cases when the subject of the piece has been male, such expert legal/political and on rare occasions sociological views have been a staple of similar stories in the past. I have neither seen nor heard any such opinion accompanying any of the news items I have come across on this story. At the very least I would expect some comment regarding the significance of Sir Alex Allanís resignation and again I have seen none.

In calling me sexist you are indirectly commenting on this lack of even-handed reporting Ė do you seriously think that I would make these observations falsely and choose this forum to do so? If your answer is no, as I hope it will be, then by inference you accept that I have not seen any reports on this story cover anything beyond the bare facts. That being the case (and I assure you it is the case) there is a clear reticence in the reporting of this story which amounts to PP being given a soft ride by the media. Possibly this is out of fear that some nouveau-reactionary like yourself will drop the much dreaded S-bomb on anyone with the gall to suggest that a double standard is in play.

I must now read Leithís link to see what I have evidently missed in terms of coverage of this story.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:13 am; edited 2 times in total

 
Celebaelin
1365984.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:08 am Reply with quote

Leith wrote:
They are everywhere.

They are far from everywhere or I would have seen some by now!
Leith wrote:
The BBC list a fair few complaints just from among her own colleagues

One by my count (from Sir David Normington, a former Home Office chief) contrasted with comments from two Tory MPs Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Iain Duncan Smith saying what she did wasnít bullying when Sir Alex Allanís report was clear in stating that it was. Add in a link to an article quoting in full BJís list of mitigating circumstances which amounts to Ďbeing the Home Secretary is a tough job especially if youíve alienated the Civil Service and are trying to bully them back into lineí (... OK, I made that bit up but itís not a massive stretch of the imagination to envisage it from what was written). The original article you linked to emphasises personal statements of support by placing them on an equal footing to the findings of the report and that's not right.

The paragraph covering the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam is quite damning but it is not a comment or an opinion it is reporting of established fact.

Leith wrote:
...so you can probably imagine what those not politically aligned with Patel are saying

Iíll have to imagine it since no opposition comment is included Ė youíd think they at least would have something to say on the matter if only on petty party political grounds but apparently any quote they may or may not have given is not newsworthy.
Link as provided by Leith

Leith wrote:
John Bercow faced similar complaints over comparable allegations at the beginning of the year and I suspect the responses were similarly strident or muted according to allegence (with him and with his perceived position on Brexit)

I donít recall any comments from very high ranking ex Civil Servants but I did, on my first attempt, find these pieces which offer, either in whole or in part, comment on the bullying accusations against JB who was not, incidentally, ever the subject of an investigation in this regard but was still widely vilified in spite of that. Quite possibly rightly so but unlike PP's case there was no actual report confirming his abuses of those around him.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/07/john-bercow-bullying-allegations-westminster-accused-parliament
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/john-bercow-hit-by-third-bullying-allegation-ahead-of-peerage-decision
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/25/john-bercow-peerage-fresh-doubts-bullying-claims-resurface
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51226986
https://news.sky.com/story/john-bercow-accuser-stands-by-bullying-claims-against-former-speaker-11926683
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-bercow-speaker-bullying-allegations-harassment-parliament-commons-a9172956.html

 
PDR
1365988.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:28 am Reply with quote

I've certainly seen plenty of coverage and commentary of Ms Patel's inappropriate behaviour towards her subordinates, so I'm not sure the suggestion has merit. But what it boils down to is that she is a thug, a bully, a liar and one who has clearly demonstrated (over many years) that she has negligible personal integrity and firmly believes that rules and laws do not apply to her.

All of this is a matter of public record, but if it were to be deemed grounds for dismissal than the government would have a problem because they are characteristics shared and promoted by every single one of them (with the possible exception of Rishi Sunak),

So as a result we now have to accept that we live in a country which espouses bullying, lying and the complete absence of integrity. We laugh at america and their Trump, but the sad truth is that we have exactly the same problem here. At least Trump has the excuse that he's a barely sentient little twat, where Boris is clearly not unintelligent. He's just a cynical lying little thug.

That's what the country voted for when they voted for Brexit, so now they suffer the conesequences of their actions.

And remember that, as we learned straight from the horse's arse, we are enduring all of this just to avoid a little bit of a traffic jam on one stretch of motorway.

PDR

 
Celebaelin
1365992.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:57 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I've certainly seen plenty of coverage and commentary of Ms Patel's inappropriate behaviour towards her subordinates, so I'm not sure the suggestion has merit.

I'm not saying there are no reports of her abusive behaviour I'm saying that, unusually, there are no experts/academics/lawyers etc. being interviewed for print pieces or vouchsafing to camera the staggering revelations that 'this is a bad thing, bullies are bad people and/or PP is a bad person'.

I think the country needs and deserves more self-righteous condescending finger-waggers and I have taken it upon myself to demand that they be included in any further news items.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total

 
franticllama
1365994.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:01 am Reply with quote

I sort of see what Cele is getting at now.
This is being handled differently to how a Minister breaking the Ministerial Code ought to be handled. I just don't think it's because Ms Patel is female.
There isn't an exactly comparable instance in the current cabinet, but there are instances where any other PM would have requested a resignation by now. (if the cabinet member hadn't already taken the hint) This has not happened for either Mr Williamson nor Mr Jenrick.
So I am forced to conclude that the aberration here is not that Ms Patel is of the female persuasion, but because Mr Johnson doesn't mind if his government is known to be less that palatable.

 
Celebaelin
1365997.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:18 am Reply with quote

The reporting of this is not under Boris's control though - at least I sincerely hope it isn't - so it is not BJ's stance that I am scrutinising so much as the media's.

Drifting somewhat off my point once more but with regard to your criticism of other cabinet members I again feel it necessary to point out that uniquely in this cabinet PP has been the subject of a report the main finding of which was that she has broken the ministerial code - the usual response to this would be to resign. This presupposes some sort of political, ethical or moral fortitude on the part of the minister of course; you are at liberty to speculate on the likelihood of that amongst the current incumbents in any given position.

 
suze
1366000.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:48 am Reply with quote

So far as is known, this is in fact the first time ever that a Minister found to be breach of the Ministerial Code has kept his/her job.

In days gone by it would have been less obvious. While the Ministerial Code has "always" existed, it wasn't public knowledge until the 1980s. A Minister might resign out of the apparent blue, and the press would go along with the official statement that "he expressed a wish to spend more time with his family". The editors of the major newspapers probably knew what had actually happened, but they didn't report it.

Even so, it was an article of faith in government that breach of the Code equaled loss of office.

It appears now to be impossible to be fired from the Johnson Cabinet. Under most previous PMs, Mr Williamson would have been fired for incompetence several times over (and remember that he was fired from his position in the May government for, prima facie, a criminal offence, which was swept under the carpet). Mr Jenrick likewise, and while I accept that now probably isn't a good time to make a change at Health, Mr Hancock would have had some serious kicks up the arse.

Mr Gove might well have been fired too, for being a loose cannon. It's no great secret that he and Mr Johnson don't get on, and several times this year he's made policy statements which were contradicted in short order. It may be that Johnson finds it safer to have Gove inside pissing out than the opposite thing, just as that may well be how Mrs May felt about Johnson.

As we all know, Mr Johnson says that he was forced to announce the second lockdown two days before he planned to, because of a leak. As often as not leaks are deliberate, but Mr Johnson said not so in this instance, and that he was genuinely cross about it.

The commentators are divided on whether that leak was the work of Gove or of Cummings; they seem fairly sure that it was one or the other. If it was Cummings, well he has now been fired, although he's been allowed to say that he resigned.

But a public perception that Cabinet ministers are untouchable cannot be a good thing, and that is the perception that has developed.

 
tetsabb
1366007.  Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:34 am Reply with quote

Perhaps they have photos of Johnson involved with a donkey, some bolognese sauce, some rubber bands and a gimp mask.

But then would he be embarrassed I'd such were to come to light?
I think possibly not.....

 

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group