On your own thread? I sure that means you are disqualified.
Mike published it, not me. I just saw his tweet.
Everyone loves the glory of being first.
I've often thought of a PB service where for, say, £10 a time, posters get a two minute notice that a new thread has gone up before I Tweet it. This would help support the site and give people the pleasure and bragging rights of being able to write First.
Are there any other forums or sites that operate the PB-style 'single thread at a time' approach? I think it works really well and the current race to be first is one of the minor pleasures of PB, so I do hope you don't sell out to the tempataion of a the multi-£m revenue stream such a notification service would obviously bring in.
I say, let's keep the level-playing field for all! (except TSE obs!)
If TSE gets joy in cheating, it's the least he can enjoy it for the rest of the work he does here.
Fair point.
Personally, I feel I can claim first if the only earlier poster is TSE.
What would happen, in practice, if the Home Office Civil Service went on strike, or a 9-5 work to rule?
Would anyone notice?
The preparation for the points based immigration system would stop for instance, and many other things that the Home Office does. So yes people would notice.
What would happen, in practice, if the Home Office Civil Service went on strike, or a 9-5 work to rule?
Would anyone notice?
The preparation for the points based immigration system would stop for instance, and many other things that the Home Office does. So yes people would notice.
Do we think the Tories will hit 50% of the vote in 2024?
All depends on Johnson and Brexit. If Brexit is a rip-roaring success why not?
Johnson is a vote winning machine. Against Starmer or Nandy less likely, although both have had charisma by-passes. Against Long Bailey, the sky is the limit.
My model has r^2 = 0.998 for the past 14 days' worth of coronavirus cases outside China. If it continues to fit, we'll get: 2 March 10700 5 March 23700 7 March 42400 9 March 79100 12 March 217000 10^6th case 17 March 10^7th case, 22 March 10^8th case, 27 March 10^9th case, 31 March ...and as bad as it's going to get, wrt no. of people infected, 4 April. Happy Easter!
After a while carriers will be meeting people who have or have had it, so the exponential decreases
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Do we think the Tories will hit 50% of the vote in 2024?
Not a chance.
Why are you even asking ?
Their vote share keeps going up.
The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that practically every reason why the Tories did well in 2019 will no longer apply in 2024.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone. - The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others. - Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke. - The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories. - Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Seems to me that it would be odd for a Civil Servant of many years, to throw away their career on something they didn't think was worth it.
Vs Priti Patel, who did deeply dodgy stuff in positions before in the Government, has backed dodgy positions in the past and says moronic things that don't make sense.
I think on the grounds of evidence, I will back the Civil Service.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
When I was a civil servant (very briefly !) I am sure I signed a contract that said I was working for the Queen and you cannot sue the Queen
On your own thread? I sure that means you are disqualified.
Mike published it, not me. I just saw his tweet.
Everyone loves the glory of being first.
I've often thought of a PB service where for, say, £10 a time, posters get a two minute notice that a new thread has gone up before I Tweet it. This would help support the site and give people the pleasure and bragging rights of being able to write First.
You could do a price for the text and a fiver if they make it first
My model has r^2 = 0.998 for the past 14 days' worth of coronavirus cases outside China. If it continues to fit, we'll get: 2 March 10700 5 March 23700 7 March 42400 9 March 79100 12 March 217000 10^6th case 17 March 10^7th case, 22 March 10^8th case, 27 March 10^9th case, 31 March ...and as bad as it's going to get, wrt no. of people infected, 4 April. Happy Easter!
After a while carriers will be meeting people who have or have had it, so the exponential decreases
Which is why the question of whether you can be reinfected is rather important.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Priti has form. I suspect former Civil Servants who have crossed her path will be queueing up to offer their support for Sir Philip's tribunal case.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Shipman says both sides were briefing - Most of it was anti-Patel - sounds like he got into a briefing war and lost. He should have gone when Rudd was hung out to dry.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
The question of the moment: "Which would win, 100,000 ducks or ten million locusts?"
Err, win what?
I did.. it was about an article during the week where the chinese are trying to use 100,000 ducks to control 10 billion iirc not million locusts.. the locusts will win
them scoffing 20 million a day will certainly help a bit , not sure there are 10 billion mind you
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Shipman says both sides were briefing - Most of it was anti-Patel - sounds like he got into a briefing war and lost. He should have gone when Rudd was hung out to dry.
This is a question of employment law rather than politics, though.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
The question of the moment: "Which would win, 100,000 ducks or ten million locusts?"
Err, win what?
I did.. it was about an article during the week where the chinese are trying to use 100,000 ducks to control 10 billion iirc not million locusts.. the locusts will win
them scoffing 20 million a day will certainly help a bit , not sure there are 10 billion mind you
Most of that 10 billion will die for lack of food. The ducks are used at the boundary of the infestation to prevent its spread.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
I am not sure that anyone on here can make a judgement on this as it is a question of law isn't it? Most employees have grumbles with their bosses from time to time , its part of life and work .
The question of the moment: "Which would win, 100,000 ducks or ten million locusts?"
Err, win what?
I did.. it was about an article during the week where the chinese are trying to use 100,000 ducks to control 10 billion iirc not million locusts.. the locusts will win
them scoffing 20 million a day will certainly help a bit , not sure there are 10 billion mind you
Most of that 10 billion will die for lack of food. The ducks are used at the boundary of the infestation to prevent its spread.
It's "millions" not ten billion. At least with yougov
Do we think the Tories will hit 50% of the vote in 2024?
Not a chance.
Why are you even asking ?
Their vote share keeps going up.
The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that practically every reason why the Tories did well in 2019 will no longer apply in 2024.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone. - The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others. - Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke. - The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories. - Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Would have thought so.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that practically every reason why the Tories did well in 2019 will no longer apply in 2024.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone. - The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others. - Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke. - The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories. - Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
+1
Labour are perfectly capable of winning next time.
It's too early to bet but I would price them at 5/2 for largest party.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
I am not sure that anyone on here can make a judgement on this as it is a question of law isn't it? Most employees have grumbles with their bosses from time to time , its part of life and work .
Well he evidently was not dismissed for gross misconduct, for a start. And why was he offered a settlement ?
Do we think the Tories will hit 50% of the vote in 2024?
Not a chance.
Why are you even asking ?
Their vote share keeps going up.
The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that practically every reason why the Tories did well in 2019 will no longer apply in 2024.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone. - The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others. - Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke. - The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories. - Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Would have thought so.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
Having done the dirty deed once and survived, I suspect many former Labour 'til I die voters might just do it again.
The question of the moment: "Which would win, 100,000 ducks or ten million locusts?"
Err, win what?
I did.. it was about an article during the week where the chinese are trying to use 100,000 ducks to control 10 billion iirc not million locusts.. the locusts will win
them scoffing 20 million a day will certainly help a bit , not sure there are 10 billion mind you
Most of that 10 billion will die for lack of food. The ducks are used at the boundary of the infestation to prevent its spread.
It's "millions" not ten billion. At least with yougov
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
I am not sure that anyone on here can make a judgement on this as it is a question of law isn't it? Most employees have grumbles with their bosses from time to time , its part of life and work .
Well he evidently was not dismissed for gross misconduct, for a start. And why was he offered a settlement ?
I am pretty certain neither or either of them lead to an automatic claim for constructive dismissal .
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
I am not sure that anyone on here can make a judgement on this as it is a question of law isn't it? Most employees have grumbles with their bosses from time to time , its part of life and work .
Well he evidently was not dismissed for gross misconduct, for a start. And why was he offered a settlement ?
So that he kept his mouth shut. Settlement agreements like that are pretty common with senior employees.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
The accusation that Priti breached anti-bullying procedures by abusive language and swearing at staff seems to be a reasonable starting point.
The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that practically every reason why the Tories did well in 2019 will no longer apply in 2024.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone. - The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others. - Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke. - The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories. - Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
+1
Labour are perfectly capable of winning next time.
It's too early to bet but I would price them at 5/2 for largest party.
Black swans have become so frequent that maybe we need a specific collective noun to describe them.
I wonder if Amber Rudd will be called as a witness?
Yes, it sounds horrendously dyfunctional - but I am not sure that builds a case for constructive dismissal.
I think he has a very robust case for constructive dismissal. There's absolutely no secret that Patel wanted him out and had no grounds to fire him. She and/or her associates then aggressively briefed against him with the media. From his statement, it appears he was offered a pay off and refused it.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
Sounds about right to me. No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Which procedures did they not follow?
I am not sure that anyone on here can make a judgement on this as it is a question of law isn't it? Most employees have grumbles with their bosses from time to time , its part of life and work .
Well he evidently was not dismissed for gross misconduct, for a start. And why was he offered a settlement ?
So that he kept his mouth shut. Settlement agreements like that are pretty common with senior employees.
Just to expand on that: it’s pretty clear the Cabinet Office tried to fix this, failed, and told him they wanted him to resign, quietly, in exchange for a decent sized cheque. That he refused, and chose to go down the litigation route, could be construed as courage. But it might equally be the act of someone who doesn’t know when to quit fighting. That’s not a great personality trait in a civil servant.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
I wonder who the public would prefer to stay on at the Home office.
Yes, let’s keep totally unsuitable people in office because the mob wants them
Public = mob then does it? I think this shows some arrogance and contempt for the public who frankly could not care if one member of the establishment has a row with another beyond the fact they will probably end up paying for it in taxpayers money because one side goes down a ME ME ME approach unbecoming of real leaders be they ministers or senior civil servants
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
So if their boss tells them to do something unlawful they should carry it out?
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
Rutnam became Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport in April 2012.[3] As of 2015, Rutnam was paid a salary of between £170,000 and £174,999, making him one of the 328 most highly paid people in the British public sector at that time.[5]
On 27 February 2017, it was announced that Rutnam would replace Mark Sedwill as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.[6] Rutnam took up the post in April 2017
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
So if their boss tells them to do something unlawful they should carry it out?
If Priti Woman goes now she can be back as Northern Ireland Sec. in the Autumn reshuffle. It is possible to have a perfectly good resignation as Tucker,M. once observed.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
In Bercows case there are multiple accusations on record.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Would have thought so.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
Yes. Also, I think it'd be a mistake to spend much time dissecting the past. Obviously the members mostly won't like it and a fierce argument would ensue. But more importantly, the electorate at large isn't very interested - they want to hear what the parties want to do next, not what they think about thrmselves in the past. A clear change of tone and direction implicitly rejects the previous tone and direction, without needing to go on about it.
The amicable nature of the contest reflects the general cease-fire between the different wings of Labour. There are outriders in Momentum and Labour First who are keen to go on squabbling, but most of us (including me and the other Momentum members who I know) are not interested, and willing to give Starmer (or whoever) a fair run, including policy changes, as long as he doesn't point his guns inwards. It is not, after all, as though the Government was doing so wonderfully that no effective challenge is needed.
Two early challenges will be the ECHR anti-semitism report (which I suspect will simply be accepted without quibbling, unless it proposes measures that seem totally unworkable) and the local elections in May, which are mostly in areas where Labour did well last time under Corbyn. The new team will want to do better, but it's hard to improve with some councils having 90% Labour councillors already.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white person has the whip hand over the indigenous British white man.
My model has r^2 = 0.998 for the past 14 days' worth of coronavirus cases outside China. If it continues to fit, we'll get: 2 March 10700 5 March 23700 7 March 42400 9 March 79100 12 March 217000 10^6th case 17 March 10^7th case, 22 March 10^8th case, 27 March 10^9th case, 31 March ...and as bad as it's going to get, wrt no. of people infected, 4 April. Happy Easter!
After a while carriers will be meeting people who have or have had it, so the exponential decreases
I don't think it's so much that, as people changing their behaviour as a response to fear.
The percentage infected within China has been too small to make much difference to the rate of spread, even if one assumes 90% of cases haven't being diagnosed. But still the rate of spread has plummeted, to around 10% of its peak value in Hubei Province, and around 1% elsewhere in Mainland China.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Elected or not, she has to follow the law. Pathectic to suggest otherwise. The allegation is not that she has given him instructions he did not like.
On the most recent podcast for this series. It’s an excellent in depth dissection of Corbynism and what happened. Good guests also. https://audioboom.com/channels/5016299
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
In Bercows case there are multiple accusations on record.
One gets the impression there might well be in this case too, very soon.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
You do not know the details and it is clear there is a clash of personalities
In my business no one was ever bullied and it never arose
On the US, I suspect the time to back Sanders is tomorrow after a thumping Biden win in SC - there will then be a tempory lengtthening of the Sanders price before Super Tuesday. DYOR of course.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white has the whip hand over the indigenous white man.
That was an unfortunate use of language which I regret after the point you have just made.
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
In Bercows case there are multiple accusations on record.
Personally I don't think either Bercow or Patel from any concrete evidence that the public 100% know about can be called a bully ! i think the term bully is being overused by anybody who has a score to settle in society now which is a pity as true bullying ( that poor aussie lad for example) is very wrong and inhuman.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Elected or not, she has to follow the law. Pathectic to suggest otherwise. The allegation is not that she has given him instructions he did not like.
I am not suggesting Patel breaks the law and how do you know that is the issue
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Elected or not, she has to follow the law. Pathectic to suggest otherwise. The allegation is not that she has given him instructions he did not like.
I am not suggesting Patel breaks the law and how do you know that is the issue
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Would have thought so.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
Yes. Also, I think it'd be a mistake to spend much time dissecting the past. Obviously the members mostly won't like it and a fierce argument would ensue. But more importantly, the electorate at large isn't very interested - they want to hear what the parties want to do next, not what they think about thrmselves in the past. A clear change of tone and direction implicitly rejects the previous tone and direction, without needing to go on about it.
The amicable nature of the contest reflects the general cease-fire between the different wings of Labour. There are outriders in Momentum and Labour First who are keen to go on squabbling, but most of us (including me and the other Momentum members who I know) are not interested, and willing to give Starmer (or whoever) a fair run, including policy changes, as long as he doesn't point his guns inwards. It is not, after all, as though the Government was doing so wonderfully that no effective challenge is needed.
Two early challenges will be the ECHR anti-semitism report (which I suspect will simply be accepted without quibbling, unless it proposes measures that seem totally unworkable) and the local elections in May, which are mostly in areas where Labour did well last time under Corbyn. The new team will want to do better, but it's hard to improve with some councils having 90% Labour councillors already.
The last time this round of elections took place it gave a NEV of 31% Labour, 30% Conservative:
Seems to me that it would be odd for a Civil Servant of many years, to throw away their career on something they didn't think was worth it.
Vs Priti Patel, who did deeply dodgy stuff in positions before in the Government, has backed dodgy positions in the past and says moronic things that don't make sense.
I think on the grounds of evidence, I will back the Civil Service.
One thing is a bit odd about it is that the maximum you can claim through an ET is restricted to multiples of £525 per week, probably about a quarter of what he was on. The maximum total award is capped at £86,444. I frankly would have expected a civil servant as senior as him and under pressure to take early retirement to negotiate a "package" on retirement that was worth rather more than that.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
You do not know the details and it is clear there is a clash of personalities
In my business no one was ever bullied and it never arose
Well I have, and although it was when I was very much younger the pain is regularly recollected decades on. For the record the bully in question was shown the door before any of the rest of us left!
I think Brexit caused Corbyn to overperform in 2017 and underperform in 2019. Take that special factor away, run an election with Corbyn's Labour against Generic Tory, and their par score is 250 seats. Meaning that Corbyn was unelectable but not quite as disastrously so as Dec 12th would superficially imply. Let's go deeper. How many seats did Corbyn the man cost as opposed to his policies? I judge 25. From this we can deduce that Radical Labour with a better leader (e.g. Starmer) wins 275 seats. Now let us lose the 1970s reactionary vibe from the policies, i.e. assume a manifesto that is "socialist" but in a form bespoke tailored for the age we live in. For me, this wins 50 additional seats. So we are now at 325. Not quite there. But not to worry - the next GE will be fought in a climate of intense disenchantment at the state of post Brexit, post Covid Britain. And it will be in a state, such is becoming clear. This delivers a further 30 seats to Labour. 355. A comfortable working majority and a strong mandate for transformational change in favour of neglected people in neglected places. Or to put it another way, Up The Workers! Let's hope they deliver this time.
Labour lost because Boris ran on Labour's 2017 campaign, plus Brexit, plus (assumed but no real evidence) under-the-radar denigration of Jezza. Boris ran against the May and Cameron governments, against austerity, against cuts.
And if Boris was not lying, then he will win next time because Labour's economic policy was better than the Tory one of the last decade.
Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
Patel may be the most liberal Home Secretary we've had in fifty years, but this cruel, vindictive harassment of her staff is unacceptable and vile. She has to go. Other questions demand answers too. What role did Cummings play in this? We know smashing up the Civil Service and being obnoxious is very much his thing. Was Patel merely trying to impress him or acting on his specific orders? Also, what made Boris appoint her in the first when she was a known liability who'd previously attempted to undermine British foreign policy in the Middle East. We have a right to know.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
In Bercows case there are multiple accusations on record.
Personally I don't think either Bercow or Patel from any concrete evidence that the public 100% know about can be called a bully ! i think the term bully is being overused by anybody who has a score to settle in society now which is a pity as true bullying ( that poor aussie lad for example) is very wrong and inhuman.
Several senior Brecow former subordinates are on the record about his bullying. The Patel allegations are so far anonymous.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
I think they do understand that. Ministers need to understand that treating people like dirt and lying to them, colleagues and the public is also unacceptable. Some very specific allegations have been made. There will be a court case and discovery. Let’s see what happens. We do know that the government tried to pay this bloke off. It’s interesting he refused the money.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white has the whip hand over the indigenous white man.
That was an unfortunate use of language which I regret after the point you have just made.
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
Just because it was a phrase he used does not make the analogy unsavoury. It was pretty clear there was no reference to Powell in that comment.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white has the whip hand over the indigenous white man.
That was an unfortunate use of language which I regret after the point you have just made.
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
Don’t regret it and don’t chastise yourself.
I love any opportunity to take the piss out of Enoch Powell, the guy who said I couldn’t possibly be British/English.
PP was quite obviously going to be fucking trouble from the start. That much was apparent after her shenanigans with Israel. Surely there were other hard right psychopaths that Johnson could have made Home Sec.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
He could have been totally incompetent throughout his 33 year career. If however the allegations against Priti have any foundation he still has an excellent case for constructive dismissal.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Elected or not, she has to follow the law. Pathectic to suggest otherwise. The allegation is not that she has given him instructions he did not like.
I am not suggesting Patel breaks the law and how do you know that is the issue
That is the allegation.
You are saying that the argument was over breaking the law.
I cannot comment on which law as I have no knowledge of the detail
It is quite obvious on this forum that those against HMG and brexit are siding with the civil servant while those supporting the government are not rushing to judge
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white has the whip hand over the indigenous white man.
That was an unfortunate use of language which I regret after the point you have just made.
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
Don’t regret it and don’t chastise yourself.
I love any opportunity to take the piss out of Enoch Powell, the guy who said I couldn’t possibly be British/English.
The ghost of Enoch looms large in Boris Johnson's government.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
Patel was just pushy in trying to get things done and as a right wing pro Brexit, state and non Oxbridge educated minister hardly someone senior civil servants would have warmed to.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Just curious, whose side did you take on the Bercow bullying accusations?
In Bercows case there are multiple accusations on record.
Personally I don't think either Bercow or Patel from any concrete evidence that the public 100% know about can be called a bully ! i think the term bully is being overused by anybody who has a score to settle in society now which is a pity as true bullying ( that poor aussie lad for example) is very wrong and inhuman.
Several senior Brecow former subordinates are on the record about his bullying. The Patel allegations are so far anonymous.
That may be so but unless we live in a society (that I did not think I grew up in) that a mere accusation ,whether on record or not, makes it true. Especially given the term bullying is very subjective which in turn make it easy for people to self announce they have been bullied.
Bullying has to be more than having a row with your boss or even having a rude boss
PP was quite obviously going to be fucking trouble from the start. That much was apparent after her shenanigans with Israel. Surely there were other hard right psychopaths that Johnson could have made Home Sec.
Seems to me that it would be odd for a Civil Servant of many years, to throw away their career on something they didn't think was worth it.
Vs Priti Patel, who did deeply dodgy stuff in positions before in the Government, has backed dodgy positions in the past and says moronic things that don't make sense.
I think on the grounds of evidence, I will back the Civil Service.
One thing is a bit odd about it is that the maximum you can claim through an ET is restricted to multiples of £525 per week, probably about a quarter of what he was on. The maximum total award is capped at £86,444. I frankly would have expected a civil servant as senior as him and under pressure to take early retirement to negotiate a "package" on retirement that was worth rather more than that.
Suggests he wants the publicity rather than cash, which will come for either feeling very aggrieved or a political motive. The former feels more likely.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
Further proof that Enoch Powell was right.
The non white has the whip hand over the indigenous white man.
That was an unfortunate use of language which I regret after the point you have just made.
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
Just because it was a phrase he used does not make the analogy unsavoury. It was pretty clear there was no reference to Powell in that comment.
Bearing in mind Powell's intention and Priti's background it was unfortunately inappropriate.
PP was quite obviously going to be fucking trouble from the start. That much was apparent after her shenanigans with Israel. Surely there were other hard right psychopaths that Johnson could have made Home Sec.
Certainly.
But would they tick the diversity boxes ?
Patel is there *because* she is useless and dispensable, just like the rest of the Cabinet.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Would have thought so.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
Yes. Also, I think it'd be a mistake to spend much time dissecting the past. Obviously the members mostly won't like it and a fierce argument would ensue. But more importantly, the electorate at large isn't very interested - they want to hear what the parties want to do next, not what they think about thrmselves in the past. A clear change of tone and direction implicitly rejects the previous tone and direction, without needing to go on about it.
The amicable nature of the contest reflects the general cease-fire between the different wings of Labour. There are outriders in Momentum and Labour First who are keen to go on squabbling, but most of us (including me and the other Momentum members who I know) are not interested, and willing to give Starmer (or whoever) a fair run, including policy changes, as long as he doesn't point his guns inwards. It is not, after all, as though the Government was doing so wonderfully that no effective challenge is needed.
Two early challenges will be the ECHR anti-semitism report (which I suspect will simply be accepted without quibbling, unless it proposes measures that seem totally unworkable) and the local elections in May, which are mostly in areas where Labour did well last time under Corbyn. The new team will want to do better, but it's hard to improve with some councils having 90% Labour councillors already.
Labour won 1326 councillors in 2016 the last time the seats were up, the Tories 842.
There are also 40 PCC posts which the Tories have most of for them to target in May and London Assembly seats like Havering and Redbridge and Croydon and Sutton the Tories only won narrowly last time.
May's vote will be the first electoral test for Starmer
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
Patel was just pushy in trying to get things done and as a right wing pro Brexit, state and non Oxbridge educated minister hardly someone senior civil servants would have warmed to.
It was more a clash of culture than anything
We do know that Patel is a liar. That's how she lost her last job in government. I suspect that Johnson has far fewer problems with liars than May did, though. For obvious reasons.
Seems to me that it would be odd for a Civil Servant of many years, to throw away their career on something they didn't think was worth it.
Vs Priti Patel, who did deeply dodgy stuff in positions before in the Government, has backed dodgy positions in the past and says moronic things that don't make sense.
I think on the grounds of evidence, I will back the Civil Service.
One thing is a bit odd about it is that the maximum you can claim through an ET is restricted to multiples of £525 per week, probably about a quarter of what he was on. The maximum total award is capped at £86,444. I frankly would have expected a civil servant as senior as him and under pressure to take early retirement to negotiate a "package" on retirement that was worth rather more than that.
Suggests he wants the publicity rather than cash, which will come for either feeling very aggrieved or a political motive. The former feels more likely.
Yes. But to fall out with one HS is unfortunate. To have fallen out with 2...
Given the salary levels quoted downthread I don't suppose he will be short of a bob or two and his pension will be worth millions.
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
I think they do understand that. Ministers need to understand that treating people like dirt and lying to them, colleagues and the public is also unacceptable. Some very specific allegations have been made. There will be a court case and discovery. Let’s see what happens. We do know that the government tried to pay this bloke off. It’s interesting he refused the money.
I think that is fair and there must be two sides to the story
I am not a Patel fan but I think both sides need a fair hearing
And it is my 19th birthday today and as it comes only once every four years, I will agree with everyone just for today !!!!
I am no fan of Priti Patel but for her senior civil servant to quit in tears is really rather pathetic
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
No it is not!
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
It is possible for both Patel to be an abusive bully and Rutnam not up to the job.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
Patel was just pushy in trying to get things done and as a right wing pro Brexit, state and non Oxbridge educated minister hardly someone senior civil servants would have warmed to.
It was more a clash of culture than anything
The Civil Service is there to impartially serve the elected government of the day, not the other way around.
Comments
Personally, I feel I can claim first if the only earlier poster is TSE.
Johnson is a vote winning machine. Against Starmer or Nandy less likely, although both have had charisma by-passes. Against Long Bailey, the sky is the limit.
There may have also been briefing from supporters of his but, unless there is a smoking gun linking him personally to that, it makes very little difference to the claim.
- The fear of Brexit being stopped will be gone.
- The actual Brexit result will have crystallised around a new reality rather than still being a hypothetical. As such it will undoubtedly please some whilst upsetting others.
- Corbyn will no longer be the Leader of the Opposition and Starmer (if indeed it is he) will be a far more electable choice - even if I can't stand the bloke.
- The economic and employment cycle will almost certainly have moved against the Tories.
- Boris will have been in power for 5 years rather than 5 months so will not be able to hide from any bad Government decisions and pretend they were nothing to do with him.
I don't think this means Boris will lose. But I do think that, black swans excepted, it will be far more of a contest than 2019 was.
Vs Priti Patel, who did deeply dodgy stuff in positions before in the Government, has backed dodgy positions in the past and says moronic things that don't make sense.
I think on the grounds of evidence, I will back the Civil Service.
No doubt there is right and wrong on both sides, but on the plain facts claimed, his employer does not appear to have followed procedure the law requires.
Lots of people voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done", hence they won so easily. I would have thought there are many voters, like myself, who are excited to see what all parties have to offer in post EU Britain, sans excuses of hands tied by Brussels
Labour are perfectly capable of winning next time.
It's too early to bet but I would price them at 5/2 for largest party.
I wonder who the public would prefer to stay on at the Home office.
Telling..
The advice is to quit your job ASAP, the employer then can argue that by staying you accepted the working conditions.
Now Patel is no stranger for allegations of bullying, from her time at DFID.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/24/civil-servant-writes-staff-priti-patel-bullying-reports?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/28/810433230/physicist-and-iconoclastic-thinker-freeman-dyson-dies-at-96?fbclid=IwAR26SXMBO-8-ggXLaaWSqeINGdty8lCreGtSE0salVccGJk32EtPRm6xQEk
Maybe some civil servants need to understand the politician is elected and answerable to the public and they should do everything to follow their instructions whether they like it or not
Rutnam became Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport in April 2012.[3] As of 2015, Rutnam was paid a salary of between £170,000 and £174,999, making him one of the 328 most highly paid people in the British public sector at that time.[5]
On 27 February 2017, it was announced that Rutnam would replace Mark Sedwill as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.[6] Rutnam took up the post in April 2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Rutnam
In that relationship she had the whip hand, however she had absolutely no right to be abusive. Which is the principal allegation against Priti Patel.
You have clearly never worked for someone who abuses their power and authority.
The amicable nature of the contest reflects the general cease-fire between the different wings of Labour. There are outriders in Momentum and Labour First who are keen to go on squabbling, but most of us (including me and the other Momentum members who I know) are not interested, and willing to give Starmer (or whoever) a fair run, including policy changes, as long as he doesn't point his guns inwards. It is not, after all, as though the Government was doing so wonderfully that no effective challenge is needed.
Two early challenges will be the ECHR anti-semitism report (which I suspect will simply be accepted without quibbling, unless it proposes measures that seem totally unworkable) and the local elections in May, which are mostly in areas where Labour did well last time under Corbyn. The new team will want to do better, but it's hard to improve with some councils having 90% Labour councillors already.
The non white person has the whip hand over the indigenous British white man.
The percentage infected within China has been too small to make much difference to the rate of spread, even if one assumes 90% of cases haven't being diagnosed. But still the rate of spread has plummeted, to around 10% of its peak value in Hubei Province, and around 1% elsewhere in Mainland China.
The allegation is not that she has given him instructions he did not like.
https://audioboom.com/channels/5016299
Other podcast sources available..
In my business no one was ever bullied and it never arose
No one has ever accused me of channelling Enoch Powell before. I stand chastised and corrected.
Shipman says much of the briefing from the Home Office was anti-Patel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_local_elections
There should be scope for both parties to show good increases.
And if Boris was not lying, then he will win next time because Labour's economic policy was better than the Tory one of the last decade.
Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn than Jeremy Corbyn.
I love any opportunity to take the piss out of Enoch Powell, the guy who said I couldn’t possibly be British/English.
And if you know you'll be given some quangocrat positions in the future.
I cannot comment on which law as I have no knowledge of the detail
It is quite obvious on this forum that those against HMG and brexit are siding with the civil servant while those supporting the government are not rushing to judge
It was more a clash of culture than anything
Bullying has to be more than having a row with your boss or even having a rude boss
I think Patel is probably the least qualified Home Secretary in my lifetime, worse than hapless Jacqui Smith, but mendacious and malevolent as well.
But not convinced yet Mr Rutnam has a cast iron case. Look forward to seeing the evidence.
But would they tick the diversity boxes ?
It can also be deserved.
I suspect they're both at fault.
There are also 40 PCC posts which the Tories have most of for them to target in May and London Assembly seats like Havering and Redbridge and Croydon and Sutton the Tories only won narrowly last time.
May's vote will be the first electoral test for Starmer
Given the salary levels quoted downthread I don't suppose he will be short of a bob or two and his pension will be worth millions.
I am not a Patel fan but I think both sides need a fair hearing
And it is my 19th birthday today and as it comes only once every four years, I will agree with everyone just for today !!!!