6th March 2023
The senior civil servant Sue Gray has been appointed by the leader of the opposition as his chief of staff.
This, as you no doubt are aware, is the stuff of political controversy – not least because of Gray’s famous (infamous?) role in compiling the Partygate internal report.
From a policy perspective, however, is this controversial appointment a mistake?
Tactically and politically the appointment is an error.
It raises questions of propriety and timing for the leader of the opposition, and it opens up the question of whether her role in the Partygate report was politically motivated.
It also distracts from any focus on the wrongdoing of Boris Johnson over Partygate.
But.
Strategically and governmentally the appointment is sensible.
If the leader of the opposition becomes prime minister then he needs aides who (genuinely) know the Whitehall machine, who are used the glare of the media, and who are unafraid of speaking truth to power, or at least to Prime Ministers.
As such Gray’s appointment can be compared to that of Margaret Thatcher’s aides, the recently deceased Bernard Ingham and Charles Powell, and Tony Blair’s appointment of Jonathan Powell.
Such appointments are a mark of taking government and policy seriously.
The timing of the appointment is dreadful, and it may be politically counterproductive in March 2023, but it may look less problematic if Labour win the next general election.
And in the run up to the next election, it means the party (currently) most likely to win that election will have guidance which enable it to better prepare for the realities of implementing manifesto promises and translating policy into practice.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
I think appointing Sue Gray is probably one of the best moves that Starmer has made. It’s a clear sign that not only is he preparing for government, but he’s preparing to lay the groundwork for a more sensible and serious style of government.
While I agree that the timing of her appointment is a tactical and political error, I suspect that it might actually cause more problems for those seeking to make hay of the appointment, particularly now that Hancock and Johnson are back in the news of their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Partygate scandal.
I agree as to the strength of the appointment. I disagree as to the politics.
Your assessment may have merit had there been any focus on Johnson’s wrongdoing from which this is a distraction. But that is not the case.
The focus was on Sunak’s achievement regarding the Windsor Framework.
If you had told the PM that two days later everyone would be talking, again, about partygate, do you think he would have regarded that as a political boon? No.
Even were Johnson vindicated that is of no assistance to Sunak. It would just give credence to a betrayal myth and will embolden Johnson to further political interference (not least regarding the Windsor Framework).
In truth the timing is appalling for Sunak.
Why would anyone involved aim their timing to suit Sunak?
Not necessarily to suit Sunak, but it’s worth noting that Sunak is the person who decides when a snap election happens. I think the Windsor Framework was the informal launch of his election campaign. He’s trying to drag the Tory party into election mode, to turn the polls around so he can call an election at the “right time”.
(Just put yourself in Sunak’s shoes. Are you going to sit around twiddling your fingers until a massive electoral defeat is forced upon you or are you going to do everything possible to win it?)
Starmer and his team has to walk a fine line. They only have approximately six weeks’ notice between Sunak saying “go” and election day to shift from running their own unofficial long campaign to a short and furious campaign to potentially entering government. It’s a lot to be ready for.
I’m in two minds whether it is a tactical error. I wonder if Labour have calculated that any complaints simply draw attention to partygate, and leave the Tories tied up in knots as to what they disagree with in terms of her report.
Kind of like the Streisand effect: everybody is talking about it, even if most of the talk is rabid froth.
And all that it is is froth: the frothers have exposed that that is all that they’ve got, and it shows them up something dreadful.
I can see the argument that this is effectively taking a short-term tactical hit for a long-term strategic benefit, and I can’t help feeling that it has to be a good thing if we have politicians who are willing to do that, rather than pandering entirely to short-term drivers as Johnson did.
However I would set against that that, however difficult this may be for Starmer to handle at present, it is far more trouble for Sunak. Anything which emboldens the few remaining Johnson loyalists to try to get their man back into power is a potential nightmare for those trying to rebuild the Conservative Party’s reputation.
So perhaps this isn’t such clear evidence of long-term thinking by Starmer as I might hope, because the short-term pain may not actually be all that great.
Agreed all round.
This is a very naive move by Starmer, but only because it is such a mistimed move: Johnson is in the process of imploding and Starmer should have waited until it would have been impossible for Johnson even to try to discredit Gray.
As DAG suggests, and Ian Dunt (Guardian) and Stephen Bull (FT) have explained in greater detail – and picked the criticisms to pieces in the process – the appointment per se makes a lot of sense and should pay off, and Johnson’s attack is as risible as it is hypocritical.
But right now Starmer is looking a bit of a clod. Which is a great pity.
But if Johnson implodes then we’re left with a straight fight on competence grounds between Starmer and Sunak.
Whereas if Johnson manages to wriggle off the hook for partygate, then his and his supporters’ continued grievance at having lost the premiership will continue to undermine Sunak, prolong the Tory civil war, and maintain the impression that has now set in among the wider electorate that the Tories are a busted flush who need to be ejected from power ASAP.
Yes, I think she can’t be penalised for having undertaken a job that was asked of her within her role. The timing is awful but if they want her for this post, no time would have been any good. Johnson seems to damage everyone his grimy story touches.
I disagree on the error part. It seems well calculated both with regard to timing – their choice, no leak – and content. It flushes out the rabid Johnsonians just at the point where the attention was on Sunak doing a good job and allows a simple contrast between doing the right thing well (Starmer) and making a hash of it (anything to do with ABd-PJ).
In the longer run having a sound Chief of Staff who is respected in Whitehall will stand Starmer in good stead. It bodes well.
I am somewhat persuaded to water down my earlier comment on timing. You may be right.
I agree with you.
And at some point,Gray will be wheeled out to say that she has always been professionally neutral as a civil servant, but when she saw the appalling mess the Tories are making she felt it was her duty to leave neutrality behind.
Meantime, Johnson is back in the news, and the public is reminded that Sunak’s apparent competence is a brief interlude.
The people who are currently crying foul about the appointment were never going to vote for Labour anyway. And all they’re doing is reigniting the civil war within the Conservative Party (and pushing Sunak’s apparent diplomatic success out of the headlines in the process).
So it seems like a win-win scenario for Starmer, with both short term and long term benefits.
I wonder whether Labour’s hand was forced and the news of the appointment was released before it was leaked as, for what it’s worth, I find it hard to credit that Starmer would not have known the likely consequences of the announcement. An alternative view is that it was done deliberately to keep Boris Johnson’s presence in the Conservative Parliamentary ranks to cause trouble for the leadership in the period up to the next election.
A chief of staff requires I would argue, above almost else significant diplomatic skills.
A point lost on all the instant experts in the Commentariat that have appeared since Friday on the subject of filling such a role.
I was a chief of staff, Secretariat in Employment Service/Jobcentre Plus terms, on three separate occasions to Grade 7/6s, managing the Jobcentre network in Birmingham and Solihull.
My last Grade 6 moved on to become the Grade 5 Regional Director for the West Midlands Region.
I do not think I would have been asked back a second and a third time if I was not up to the job.
As an Executive Officer, it was not unusual for me to act with the implied authority of the Area/District Manager.
The sturm and drang of Westminster bubble politics have obscured the strengths and weaknesses of the appointee relative to the job to which she was appointed.
There is nothing much in Sue Gray’s CV (of which there is no great deal in the public domain) that indicates she possesses the right skill set.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33431580
In fact, on Twitter on Friday, Lord Richard Newby the leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords observed, “Not sure Sue Gray is a wise appointment. She had a rep for being inflexible & didactic. Not ideal qualities for a chief of staff.”
Has Sir Keir, perhaps, appointed a Mini Me to be his Jiminy Cricket?
As an aside, it would appear that Sue Gray wanted to know she had a safe berth before she resigned, despite having if she is already receiving it a decent Civil Service Pension.
Reasonable caution, but it means she may have had lengthy conversations with her new employer before resigning from her job at the heart of government.
Did Gray let Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary know she was in discussions with the Leader of the Official Opposition about a key post in his team?
This feels like a botched transfer deal or perhaps a poorly arranged Cold War defection.
And, as Alastair Campbell has observed more than once, when say the manner of an appointment, not the quality of the appointee, becomes the story, you have lost the initiative.
The appointment of Sue Gray has a few challenges for Starmer and I would venture that, down the line, the appointment will be revoked. Probably sooner than later.
You are right that governmentally the appointment is a reasonable one – Starmer would benefit from an insider who can act as a ‘jungle guide’ in order to get things done in and of the Whitehall machinery.
That Powell and Ingham appointments were from a different era when cronyism wasn’t as rife. More of a red herring.
Herein, lies Sue Gray’s key problem – to many people , I would posit that they will have heard about her investigation into partygate – most will also think she did an honest job. Which I believe she likely did.
The problem arises now, because we have a potential conflict of interest – was she motivated by political allegiance to produce the partygate conclusions? How long has she been talking to Starmer about the appointment ? Worse, it seems that she hasn’t even sought permission from the Business Advisory panel to work for HM Leader of the Opposition.
This is the nub of the problem – it probably looks worse than it is – but, good governance and due process hasn’t been followed.
As is often said , perception often trounces reality – if a whiff of cronyism exists it’s a shame, but the process for senior appointments is meant for everyone – Sue Gray drives a coach and horses through due process – for this reason alone , I suspect her appointment will be re-voked.
Poor judgement shown by Starmer (and his advisors) but that is another discussion.
I agree that the timing looks terrible (particularly with Boris Johnson’s current situation with the Privileges Committee). However if Keir Starmer wants to have Sue Gray available to fulfil the Chief of Staff role, he needed to do this sooner rather than later – as she will presumably have to have a period of ‘gardening leave’ before she is allowed to take up this post. This is likely to be a minimum of 3 months, though in her case could easily be a year, or perhaps even longer. Given the likely election date of Autumn 2024, then Mr Starmer had to set the ball rolling quickly.
In my view the undoubted political cost right now is far outweighed by the benefits Sue Gray’s vast experience and sound judgement will contribute to any future Starmer administration (if so chosen by the voters).
I don’t recall any criticism of her before she took on Partygate.
Criticism after she reported was directed at the police.
Knowing her way around Westminster makes sense.
If it is a minor storm that runs for a week or so, what’s the problem?
If she doesn’t have the qualities required to be Chief executive, what has she been doing in what appears to be an impressive career?
On tactics, politics, strategy and experience I find it an excellent appointment.
Starmer may have to wait a bit but no doubt there is plenty she can be getting on with in the garden.
I’m not so sure that the appointment is a tactical and political error. Yes it has raised questions around her role in the Partygate report, but I suspect ANY focus on Partygate is bad news for Johnson and bad news for the Conservatives. By raising questions about Sue Gray’s independence Johnson’s defenders may have simply reminded the electorate of the scale of his malfeasance. For Labour there may be no such thing as bad Partygate publicity.
I agree with John Jones. I’d just add that previous officials such as Powell – and Frost more recently – were not as senior and central as Gray.
I fear the move risks longer term damage to the CS. Ministers (of any party) may worry more about the political allegiance of senior officials and what they may do next (or indeed be doing concurrently). And be inclined to ask “Is s/he one of us?”
There are very good reasons former Cabinet Secretaries etc sit as cross-bench peers. (And I wonder if one of Gray’s motivations is a route to the Lords which she no longer saw in the CS.)
That latter allegation doesn’t stack up in theory, since Starmer has announced plans to abolish the Lords. (Whether he actually does so is another matter.)
On the matter of the Sue Gray Appointment.
Tories: spend several years appointing bubbies and mates to public posts who do not have any relevant knowledge skills and experience, but who donated money to us.
Labour: make a technical appointment of someone with a proven track record who has the knowledge skills and experience (and whose appointment will be checked by the appropriate civil service rules…).
Result: right wing press and politicians go off on one about Labour corruption.
We are two Englands. One, politically literate, looks at this and says it’s a sensible appointment with tactically poor timing. The Second, politically illiterate, jumps up and down masticating in fury on the stools of their hypocrisy.
One of them told me in the local pub last night that Sue Gray was “despicable”. When challenged for evidence to support that act of character assassination they were unable to do so.
Lottie: reaches for the Dictionary to check the meaning of “hypocrisy”…
Sir Keir was kebbabed this morning on Call Keir on LBC over the appointment of Sue Gray.
And he was as on previous occasions, clearly unprepared for an obvious line of questioning.
He certainly needs a chief of staff, but if he is not willing to be managed then is there much point in him appointing one?
The best chiefs of staff are invisible so it is hard to find precedents for such an appointment, but Sir Francis Wilfred “Freddie” de Guingand does spring to my mind.
He served as Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery’s chief of staff from the Second Battle of El Alamein until the end of the Second World War.
De Guingand formed a close relationship with Bedell Smith, General Dwight D Eisenhower’s chief of staff and was able to smooth over many difficulties arising from Montgomery’s poor relationships with many of his peers and superiors.
De Guingand was highly respected by the Americans.
General of the Army Omar Bradley, who served under Montgomery’s command as the commander of the First United States Army and US 12th Army Group, observed,
“Like Bedell Smith, a brilliant staff officer dedicated to anonymity and his job, de Guingand went one step further by complementing the personality of his chief. In Freddy, as de Guingand was affectionately known to the American command, we found a ready intermediary and peacemaker. For whenever the distant attitude of Montgomery ruffled a US staff, it was good old cheerful Freddy who came down to smooth things over. An able and professional soldier, de Guingand had served Montgomery since El Alamein. He was an able and sympathetic administrator, wise to and unpanicked by the crises and problems of war. Although Freddy’s popularity with the American command stemmed partly from the adeptness with which he bridged our good relations, he was uncompromisingly devoted and loyal to his chief. De Guingand earned our affection not because he toadied to us but because he helped to compose our differences with justice and discretion.”
I gather De Guingand even managed to get on the right side of General George S Patton.
Of course, unsurprisingly, Niccolo Machiavelli has a few words to say on the subject …
https://jodatu.wordpress.com/2021/11/12/the-first-opinion-that-is-formed-of-a-rulers-intelligence-is-based-on-the-quality-of-the-men-he-has-around-him/
If I were being cynical, I would suggest that Starmer has acted ruthlessly in his political interest. He has stirred up the debate on Partygate and encouraged Johnson and supporters like Rees Mogg to go ape.
Sunak’s one chance of clinging to power after the next election is to convince the country hat he is a supremely competent prime minister and that Johnson (and probably Truss) were aberrations. The more coverage Johnson and Rees Mogg get, the more cabinet ministers that copy Heaton Harris and fail to convey that only convention stops them using four letter words to describe Johnson, the less likely the country is to forget that Sunak served under Johnson.
I agree with your analysis of this appointment, David. It is a distraction from the work of the Committee of Privileges, and that was unnecessary. It isn’t unconstitutional, as Vernon Bogdanor claims in the Telegraph. The reputations of both Starmer and Gray will not suffer unduly, as both are presently highly regarded. The longer term benefits of preparing Labour for government are apparent.
Even in the short term, March 2023, Johnson has ensured that the focus returns to his misgovernment by nominating his father for a knighthood, while alienating Tory MPs by claiming that his removal from office was an outrage. Meanwhile, Mr. Hancock and his ghost writer ensure that no-one forgets the folly of Eat Out to Help Out, the brainchild of the present Prime Minister. A few days ago, Mr. Sunak appeared to be having a good few days. Now the focus is back on the ineptitude and corruption of the Tories. The announcement of Ms. Gray’s appointment may well have been timed to contribute to that focus.
“..The reputations of both Starmer and Gray will not suffer unduly…”
So, I can’t see or claim unconstitutional BUT…
1. Why did Gray, who knows a thing or three about ethics & probity go to Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before today?
2. Ought she have spoken to her son Labour activist Liam Conlon who has been campaigning for the party’s candidate Danny Beales in Johnson’s Uxbridge seat in West London?
3. Other senior civil servants coming out against the appointment for fear of further politicising the civil service
Look, probably it’s all legitimate – I’m sure it is BUT, one would have thought that Starmer would have at least got all his (&her) ducks lined up in a row, prior to telling the world about the appointment.
Just has the whiff of an amateurism & cack-handedness. If he’s like this pre Government, what’s his judgement like with the big decisions of State??🥴
Strangely, you never see the same demands for scrutiny from Government ministers when one of their own transfers to a highly paid role with a company they’ve been dealing with in government. Acoba seems to wave those through almost as if no scrutiny was necessary.
Not sure that even if this is a successful move, it can justify voting for a centrist like Kier Starmer
The Tory reaction to Sue Gray’s appointment as Chief of Staff for Starmer is both confected and desperate. All civil servants will have personal political views but they are required to work without bias. She didn’t create the evidence of partygate, she put it all together in a report. The police also investigated that evidence and issued some fines accordingly. Arguably they let Johnson off lightly. Once the Police got involved, Gray’s report was effectively sidelined and left many questions unanswered.
Starmer’s appointment of Gray is a risk but she would be an excellent organiser for him and a permanent annoyance to the Tory right wing.
Was it announced or did Labour simply reply honestly when ask to confirm or deny a leak?
I agree with your general thrust that the appointment itself is not a mistake but that the timing is, but with one caveat.
The role Sue Gray is plainly suited to is that of Downing Street Chief of Staff (a sort of supercharged PPS heading up the Prime Minister’s Office). A role that calls more for administrative and policy execution skills than it does pure passionate partisanship.
I am less than convinced she is suited to the more nebulous role of Chief of Staff to the LOTO. Not least because it is hard to see how, with Ms Gray in post, it would really be anything other than a Chief of Staff in Waiting role. Lest we forget, the current arrangement of the office of LOTO is managing just fine without a Chief of Staff. In short, I am not entirely convinced it is a job at all, and not just a press release about Labour’s seriousness about governing.
I have no doubt that had Starmer appointed Ms Gray as Downing Street Chief of Staff on his first day of office having, hypothetically, won a general election, not an eyebrow would have been raised. He might even have been praised.
Also, I have no hesitation in saying that some of the current outrage is confected.
The notion that offering Ms Gray the role of Chief of Staff to the LOTO undermines the integrity of her report into Partygate is risible.
Civil Service impartiality does not require Civil Servants to be devoid of political beliefs or allegiance, it requires that they check those beliefs and allegiances at the door when they come to work.
Absent evidence that the report was infected with bias (e.g. its conclusions were unsupported by the evidence or its criticisms of individuals were motivated by animus) the fact that its author may be a Labour Party supporter is irrelevant. The fact that the MPS issued fines relying on the same evidence and the Government of the day, in particular Boris Johnson, welcomed the Gray Report as vindicatory of his own position is sufficient to dispose of any suggestion of apparent, let alone actual, bias.
I would also challenge the notion that there is something unconstitutional in the idea that someone who is privy to the secrets of Government one week can, in a short time, go on to serve the Opposition.
Not to state the obvious but that is what all senior civil servants do when there is a change of Government, and there are well established procedures in place to address it.
We can say to ourselves in reassuring tones that in doing so they are merely serving the democratically elected Government of the day impartially and without favour and without compromising the independence of the Civil Service.
However, every account of the internal workings of No. 10 and the Cabinet Office since the Second World Wars shows that the senior civil servants in those offices become the partisan advocates and defenders of that Government’s agenda (regardless of whether it accords with their personal views or not) and, in turn, with equal fervour, for the next Government’s agenda. They would be no use if they didn’t, because those departments are primarily not neutrally providing front line services but: (a) developing policy; (b) planning for the execution of policy; and, (c) communicating policy to an often hostile audience.
That ability to maintain a detachment between the partisan support for your employer’s interests and your own private beliefs and interests is, I would venture, the hallmark of professionalism.
Why can someone with decades of civil service experience not bring that same professionalism (and professional detachment) to a role in the support of the Opposition? Why must it be assumed that the Chief of Staff to the LOTO must be motivated to take the role solely from a sense of partisan vocation but that the Downing Street Chief of Staff can be a serving Civil Servant?
The business rules which apply to resigning/retiring civil servants are primarily in place to prevent a different mischief entirely, namely to prevent those privy to the secrets of Government being used to either lobby Government or give companies an anti-competitive advantage.
In any event, those rules are plainly flexible enough to advise a sensible period of purdah in the present case. Although, in practice nothing of Ms Gray’s career to date would suggest she has any difficulty understanding what should remain secret and how to keep it secret.
Notwithstanding, the appointment of Ms Gray at this time does not sit well.
It stinks of complacency. Precisely because she would plainly be suited to the role if Starmer was PM but less obviously so while he is not.
I acknowledge it is hard not to be a little complacent with a sustained c.20 point lead in the polls – but it doesn’t mean the temptation should not be resisted. There is, after all, plenty of road left to run until the next General Election.
In fairness to Labour, the timing of the announcement of the offer may have been forced on them by a disgruntled internal leaker.
However, it is equally possible that someone in Labour thought that letting the cat out of the bag now would embarrass the Government and make Labour look like it is ready for Government. Neither motive would do it much credit and both would give little hope that there is a sea-change coming in the way politics is done in the UK.
Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke.
Surely, the point of Operation Sue Gray is to fill a key vacancy on Sir Keir’s staff.
A vacancy that has been in existence for nearly six months now and which may not now be filled for another three months, certainly not before May’s local authority elections.
If the General Election is in May next year then this year’s May elections would have been a relatively gentle introduction for a new chief of staff, with no practical experience of party politics, to the hurly burly of a nationwide election campaign.
An opportunity lost, but not fatally so.
For those interested in the process and the point of the exercise, and not some form of three dimensional, Palace of Westminster party political chess, Sir Keir seems to have rather left Sue Gray out to dry, yesterday, whilst on LBC:
“Q: When did you first approach Sue Gray?
Starmer says he has known Sue Gray since he was DPP. But she is not a friend.
Q: When did you approach her?
Starmer says he has been on the look out for a chief of staff for a while. He says she will set out the details.
Q: When did you approach her? Your previous chief of staff, Sam White, left in October 2022?
Starmer says Gray will lay that out.”
“Speaking to Nick Ferrari on Call Keir on LBC this morning about the controversial appointment, Sir Keir refused ten times to say exactly when he first contacted her about the role, only to say he had been looking for someone to do the job for ‘some time.’ ”
“Nick asked Sir Keir when he first contacted her about the role six times and he said it was for Ms Gray to ‘lay out’ the timeframe if she saw fit.”
There has been a suggestion that the last holder of the post of chief of staff, Sam White partly had to go, because of confusion over whether or not Lisa Nandy might break with Sir Keir’s instruction to Labour MPs not to stand on picket lines.
Nandy is believed to have thought she had Sir Keir’s approval to stand on a picket line in her constituency in the presence of the media, having discussed the matter with White, who was (see above) understood to be standing in for and acting on behalf of his boss.
In a choice between standing by his man or upbraiding a member of his Shadow Cabinet, did Sir Keir opt for the latter?
Either way, whatever the exact grounds for his departure, White went not long after this incident, sparking media speculation about the grounds for his going and Sir Keir has been short a chief of staff ever since.
So far, the execution of Operation Sue Gray has not been the best foundation on which to build a close working relationship of mutual trust; loyalty; confidence and respect.
And, if Sue Gray does not now take up the post of chief of staff, Operation Sue Gray will have failed to achieve its primary objective.
One is reminded of a line from Goldfinger, “Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action”.”
Ah, I think I may have slipped into conspiracy theorising …
Given her reputation for integrity I highly doubt that was the case. At the very least it isn’t the whole story. This is the point of view of a minister clutching at straws.