Whitehall: at last proven not to be ‘impartial’

 

Sorry: I have again broken my vow to forsake ‘MSM News’ for Lent, but there’s one news item which is  too precious and important not to take a closer look at it. Firstly, check out the print editions’ front pages for today. The headline by Auntie B’s ‘staff’: “Newspaper headlines: MI5 Manchester failings and Hancock ‘betrayed’” (link), nudges us into ‘right-think’ about yon ‘Lockdown Files’ while the good old Star relishes the opportunity to play with words, nudge-nudge wink-wink, with their front page about pussies.

There is one paper though which provides the true bombshell: the DM. Scroll down somewhat and you’ll find that Starmer has appointed a certain lady as his new chief-of-staff. That is proper news because the lady in question is none other than the impeccable Ms Sue Gray who conducted the infamous inquiry into ‘Party Gate’. I find the choice of words a bit unfortunate – ‘enforcer? Really? – but see this:

“Sir Keir said he was ‘delighted’ that Cabinet Office enforcer Sue Gray had accepted the key role. With Labour riding high in the polls, Sir Keir has been hunting for a mandarin with experience at the highest levels of Whitehall.” (link)

There are quite a few questions which should interest us. Some are more general, others are more particular, the latter of which are raised by the DM. We’re told, for example, that she resigned on 1st March and apparently took up her new job with Starmer yesterday. How seamless! However, sweetly demonstrating that ‘it’s alright when we do it’, there’s this:

“When Ms Gray was in charge of ethics at the Cabinet Office, she forced the head of the Downing Street honours team, Laura Wyld, to wait almost a year before she took up a seat in the Lords.” (link)

One rule for ‘us’, innit like … There’s one more point to be added: 9this and other emphases are mine):

“Sir Keir is thought to have set his sights on Ms Gray after being turned down by the Treasury mandarin sacked by Liz Truss, Tom Scholar. A Government source said: ‘He’s been fishing in the civil service pool for some time.’ (link)

So ‘sources’ were aware of Starmer’s ‘fishing expeditions’? Did they chat about that, using WhatsApp? This open up the can of worms which is the relationship between Whitehall mandarins and Labour. If someone as senior as Ms Gray can seamlessly, from one day to the next, take up such important position with Labour, it is quite legitimate to ask about the many tentacles connecting yon opposition party to the oh-so ‘impartial’ civil service and the Whitehall corridors of power.

It is also quite legitimate to cry, as Tories do, that the Partygate investigation was a Labour plot to oust BJ:

“Senior Conservatives say Ms Gray’s desire to work for Labour discredits her report into lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street, published less than a year ago, and raises concerns about her passing sensitive information on the Government to the opposition in the future.” (link)

Only ‘in the future’? What about the past, of all Tory governments? You might like to read the non-paywalled opinion pieces by the DM’s commentator, Andrew Pierce (link) and especially by Steven Pollard who doesn’t mince words

“Not much shocks me after spending nearly 40 years writing about Westminster and Whitehall. From venality to stupidity, corruption to mendacity, I’ve seen it all. But yesterday’s appointment by Sir Keir Starmer of Sue Gray, the civil servant who led the Partygate inquiry, as his chief of staff is not just shocking. It is grotesque, appalling and cynical. It is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of neutrality that the civil service is meant to embody.” (link)

Surprisingly, Remain Central is also shocked, publishing both a report and an opinion piece on this issue. Firstly, from their report:

“Rishi Sunak is concerned that Sue Gray could use “privileged information” to benefit the Labour Party after she left one of the most senior roles in government to serve as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. Gray, who led the investigation into the Downing Street parties scandal, has shocked Whitehall by quitting her role as a permanent secretary to take charge of the Labour Party’s preparations for government. […] Officials who have worked closely with Gray expressed their concern at the move and its impact on the perception of civil service impartiality.” (link, paywalled)

Well, it’s good to know that at least some ‘officials’ are concerned about how her move ‘impacts the perception of impartiality’. Sorry, chaps and chappettes, Ms Gray’s move simply reinforces my long-held view that Whitehall is biased and has been working tirelessly for a Labour government ever since the Leave vote in 2016. Still, some mandarins are now desperately trying to save their reputation of ‘impartiality’:

“The Cabinet Office said that it was “reviewing the circumstances” of her resignation amid concerns that she breached civil service impartiality rules by holding secret talks with Labour. Starmer is understood to have personally initiated contact with Gray several months ago after identifying her as the best person for the job.” (link, paywalled)

In their editorial, Remain Central’s editors moan that “Sue Gray’s decision to become Labour’s chief of staff harms civil service neutrality and casts doubt on the probity of the Partygate inquiry” (link, paywalled). However, I find it interesting that Ms Gray’s Partygate Inquiry is being used to query Ms Gray’s ‘neutrality’. Much as the Tories and BJ aficionados want to roll back time, the actual issue which ought to concern even the Westminster swamp dwellers is that The Times repeats the ‘concerns’ regarding her breach of impartiality:

“From a position of supposed neutrality, she is taking up one of the most overtly political roles in the country as right-hand woman to the leader of the opposition. Already, her credibility is said to have been harmed by this “bolt from the blue”. The Cabinet Office is “reviewing the circumstances” of her resignation amid concerns that she breached impartiality rules by holding secret talks with Labour.” (link, paywalled)

Are Whitehall mandarins, in concert with their editorial mouthpieces in the Westminster MSM, hoping to make her into a scapegoat? Isn’t homing in on Partygate a lovely deflection from the real issue: that Whitehall is not impartial? Do we believe that nobody in that swamp knew anything about those secret talks? Really?

Why does nobody in the Westminster MSM ask which other mandarins have been in secret talks with Starmer? The former Treasury mandarin, Mr Scholar, has already been mentioned. What about the HO’s Mr Rycroft, who has been doing his ‘impartial’ best to scupper any attempts by Tory ministers to deal with illegal migrants?

I’m not holding my breath, expecting yon lot to dig deeper into the Whitehall-Labour connections. It would be too much to hope that Parliament take on an investigation into the pernicious role played by those ‘unbiased’ Whitehall chiefs. Obviously, our ‘generation smartphone journalists’ are incapable of looking deeper into this incestuous quagmire of lefty mandarins and Labour politicians: they might lose their access to ‘sources’.

That’s all I have for today. I’m not gloating, but I do feel vindicated: my mistrust of the impartial mandarins has been proven, once and for all. Have a good day.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email