Should Priti Patel be sacked?

[Typhoon]

There seems to be a level of arrogance and self importance with politians.

Margaret Ferrier is a prime example. She should have at least apologised and resigned with immediate affect - however she's refused to go.

Does anyone know what's happened with the Ferrier matter?

CJ

The Independent member of Parliament for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is still active. She asked a question at PMQs on Wednesday (on audio only) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...tion-to-prime-minister-in-commons/ar-BB1b8bvJ.

She's obvious trying to ride this out, just like a few other people I could list. I'm afraid I don't have the interest to listen to it, the response might be interesting though.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I often listen to Any Questions, the Conservative representative is often a junior minister. They are almost invariably awful. They seem incapable of constricting an argument, it is just something like 'the government has spend this much money on whatever'.

They have any lingering individuality coached out of them. Any public appearance means they’re given “lines” which they then parrot relentlessly

Even on social media, a large part of what they post is provided by central office.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The Independent member of Parliament for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is still active. She asked a question at PMQs on Wednesday (on audio only) https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...tion-to-prime-minister-in-commons/ar-BB1b8bvJ.

She's obvious trying to ride this out, just like a few other people I could list. I'm afraid I don't have the interest to listen to it, the response might be interesting though.

The Met Police have concluded their investigations but it's with Police Scotland to see if there is a case to take forward.

However, should they decide that there is no case to pursue, then she can continue as a independent MP until the next election as none of the criteria under the Recall of MPs Act has been met.

 

[Typhoon]

They have any lingering individuality coached out of them. Any public appearance means they’re given “lines” which they then parrot relentlessly

Even on social media, a large part of what they post is provided by central office.

They just appear stupid. What they quote sometimes has nothing to do with what they are asked. I've had a look at a few social media sites, some don't hardly bother with constituency related stories, just retweet government twaddle. They don't appear to realise that if there is nothing to attract you to the site, people won't bother. Very little sign of forming a square around the Pritster though.

 

[MotCO]

The Guardian, not noted for its support of the government, had this article yesterday, which seems to set out Boris's reasons for not sacking Pretti. One paragraph in particular says "The home secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action-orientated and can be direct. The home secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID [the Department for International Development] three years ago." https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict

The article, and a further one in the Telegraph, suggests that Pretti was not being supported by her Civil Servants as she should have been, and this had also been experienced by Amber Rudd over the Windrush affair. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-weekends-home-office-shake-up-priti/#comment

 

[RichT54]

The Guardian, not noted for its support of the government, had this article yesterday, which seems to set out Boris's reasons for not sacking Pretti. One paragraph in particular says "The home secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action-orientated and can be direct. The home secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID [the Department for International Development] three years ago." https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict

The article, and a further one in the Telegraph, suggests that Pretti was not being supported by her Civil Servants as she should have been, and this had also been experienced by Amber Rudd over the Windrush affair. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-weekends-home-office-shake-up-priti/#comment

So that makes shouting and swearing at them OK?

 

[birchesgreen]

Staff tend to support their manager if they are treated well and with respect. The fact Patel has had trouble with two departments and teams indicates to me its her not them.

 

[Typhoon]

The Guardian, not noted for its support of the government, had this article yesterday, which seems to set out Boris's reasons for not sacking Pretti. One paragraph in particular says "The home secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action-orientated and can be direct. The home secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID [the Department for International Development] three years ago." https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rounds-to-ignore-priti-patel-bullying-verdict

The article, and a further one in the Telegraph, suggests that Pretti was not being supported by her Civil Servants as she should have been, and this had also been experienced by Amber Rudd over the Windrush affair. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-weekends-home-office-shake-up-priti/#comment

That may be so but I am not sure that shouting, screaming and swearing at them will resolve the problem. Firstly, I had wanted to maliciously undermine the Home Secretary, I would say that that was first blood to us. Secondly, whilst some civil servants may have been against her, there will also be some, probably many, who just want to get on with their job. There usually are in most working environments I have come across. The Home Secretary's actions will have alienated them. By that they will just get on with their work, no sympathy, no suggestions, no 'extra mile' (or even a few yards) so reducing the number of potential allies in the Home Office. Part of the prblem is that Ms Patel just appears to have waded in, she needed to have learnt the department first.

I personally don't think that Amber Rudd's lack of knowledge was a resignable offence. She could, and should, have been helped by Theresa May, who surely had an idea about who could be trusted, who would get on with it, and who the rotten apples were, and should have passed that on.

Responding to @birchesgreen above

I reckon it is three departments. There is the £25K payout at the DWP (#81, don't really want to repeat it), there was an issue at International Development from the word 'Go' (see below) and the Home Office.

When Priti Patel arrived at the Department for International Development after winning promotion to the cabinet, her civil servants lined the foyer at its HQ to give her a traditional welcome. They expected a short speech, but Patel headed straight to the lift, keeping her back to her disappointed officials when it failed to come.

Later, she fell out with senior staff, who felt she misled them about the holiday in Israel which cost Patel her job; she resigned after undisclosed meetings with Israeli officials.

OK the civil servants were rather petty, but if it is traditional, at least make the effort Something along the lines of 'Thank you for making me most welcome, I look forward to meeting you individually in the near future and so how, together, we can advance the work of the Department to reduce starvation/ disease/ inequality the influence of undemocratic nations or factions and spread the influence of the United Kingdom as a friend of developing nations across the globe" add some other drivel to convince them that you know what the department actually does then 'Please excuse me if I don't hold you back from your important work any longer as I'm keen to find out what is already in my in-tray, doubtless it is already full to overflowing. Thank you again for this wonderful reception'.

OK, they've heard it all before, so what. It took me about 5 minutes to write; as a former PR consultant she will be able to write better, quicker. Make an effort!

Quote from https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...lip-rutman-bullying-home-office-a9346816.html

 

[MotCO]

So that makes shouting and swearing at them OK?

Didn't say that; just saying there are two sides to every story, and the majority of posts on this thread have taken one side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2020 ==

That may be so but I am not sure that shouting, screaming and swearing at them will resolve the problem. Firstly, I had wanted to maliciously undermine the Home Secretary, I would say that that was first blood to us. Secondly, whilst some civil servants may have been against her, there will also be some, probably many, who just want to get on with their job. There usually are in most working environments I have come across.

It's not clear from the reports whether she upset only the top tier (who she would have had most contact with), or everyone. She seemed to ask questions and get insufficient answers; the reports suggest that she is now able to speak to non-top-tier staff who are subject matter specialists so that she gets a full picture / response, rather than possibly an edited version.

 

[Typhoon]

It's not clear from the reports whether she upset only the top tier (who she would have had most contact with), or everyone. She seemed to ask questions and get insufficient answers; the reports suggest that she is now able to speak to non-top-tier staff who are subject matter specialists so that she gets a full picture / response, rather than possibly an edited version.

Are box-sets of 'Yes, minister' not available nowadays. Sir Humphrey is almost certainly still with us. Give him a job to do so you can talk to the minions. I seem to remember there was one programme about the honours list. Make them feel important, smile at them, praise them but go round them,

And, if you are really frustrated by them, make a voodoo doll of them in your (locked) desk together with some long pins. It may work! (Not seriously!)

 

[DerekC]

It's not clear from the reports whether she upset only the top tier (who she would have had most contact with), or everyone. She seemed to ask questions and get insufficient answers; the reports suggest that she is now able to speak to non-top-tier staff who are subject matter specialists so that she gets a full picture / response, rather than possibly an edited version.

Ministers can speak to whoever they want. And part of the problem can be that Ministers want something that simply can't be delivered or would be illegal - Priti Patel's ideas on stopping boats from coming across the channel being a good example. It's the civil servants' job to explain this to then, but that's frequently seen as being obstructive and difficult.

 

[alex397]

Didn't say that; just saying there are two sides to every story, and the majority of posts on this thread have taken one side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2020 ==

It’s probably because an official investigation found she was a bully and broke the ministerial code.

There’s a big difference between being accused of something, and actually being found guilty of something!

 

[DarloRich]

Didn't say that; just saying there are two sides to every story, and the majority of posts on this thread have taken one side.

There was an investigation. It found she bullied people and thus breached the ministerial code. There is only one side to that.

It's not clear from the reports whether she upset only the top tier (who she would have had most contact with), or everyone. She seemed to ask questions and get insufficient answers;

Good job you cant bully senior people. Apparently.

 

[SuspectUsual]

She seemed to ask questions and get insufficient answers

Or to rephrase it, she asked questions and didn’t like the answers she got, and then spat her dummy

 

[MotCO]

There was an investigation. It found she bullied people and thus breached the ministerial code. There is only one side to that.

The Telegraph reported that "It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put to Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation into Ms Patel"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-weekends-home-office-shake-up-priti/#comment

You're right - there was only one side to the investigation. There are always two sides (or more!) to a story, and we are not privy to all the facts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2020 ==

Ministers can speak to whoever they want. And part of the problem can be that Ministers want something that simply can't be delivered or would be illegal - Priti Patel's ideas on stopping boats from coming across the channel being a good example. It's the civil servants' job to explain this to then, but that's frequently seen as being obstructive and difficult.

Given that part of the outcome is that Pritti now has access to more staff, it implies that she didn't have that access before. Was she being obstructed by the Civil Servants?

And with regards to the boats, if Pritti's proposals were not legal, then surely the Civil Servants should be able to propose a range of options which were legal and solved the problem. If not, is that not being obstructive?

Doesn't it sound like episodes of 'Yes Minister'?

 

[ainsworth74]

The Telegraph reported that "It emerged this weekend that not one of the allegations had been put to Ms Patel, while she had never met or spoken to Sir Alex Allan, the Whitehall civil servant who carried out the eight-month investigation into Ms Patel"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-weekends-home-office-shake-up-priti/#comment

You're right - there was only one side to the investigation. There are always two sides (or more!) to a story, and we are not privy to all the facts.

Then again neither did Sir Alex speak to Sir Philip Rutnam who you'd have thought would be a rather key witness regarding the whole thing. Especially as he claims that, contrary to the Number 10 version of events, she was spoken to about her behaviour:

Priti Patel was advised not to "swear and shout" at staff last year, a civil servant who resigned amid bullying allegations against the minister has said.

Sir Philip Rutnam stepped down as the Home Office's permanent secretary accusing her of a "vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign" against him.

The government's adviser on ministerial standards Sir Alex Allan said in his advice that there was "no evidence that (Ms Patel) was aware of the impact of her behaviour and no feedback was given to her at the time".

But in a statement issued by the FDA union, Sir Philip said: "I have a high regard for Sir Alex Allan and regret his resignation, but I was at no stage asked to contribute evidence to the Cabinet Office investigation which gave rise to his advice to the Prime Minister.

"The advice states that no feedback was given to the Home Secretary and that she was therefore unaware of issues that she might otherwise have addressed. This is not correct.

"As early as August 2019, the month after her appointment, she was advised that she must not shout and swear at staff. I advised her on a number of further occasions between September 2019 and February 2020 about the need to treat staff with respect, and to make changes to protect health, safety and wellbeing.

"Enormous efforts were made from top to bottom in the Home Office to support the new Home Secretary and respond to her direction, and significant achievements have resulted. The advice does not fairly reflect this."

Priti Patel advised not to 'swear and shout' at staff last year, former civil servant says

New claims contradict advice to the PM that there was no evidence the Home Secretary "was aware of the impact of her behaviour".

news.sky.com

Plus let's not lose sight of the fact that Sir Alex resigned on the basis that his conclusion that she had broken the ministerial code was overruled. And, to be frank, breaking the code is enough to warrant resignation or sacking.

 

[MotCO]

Plus let's not lose sight of the fact that Sir Alex resigned on the basis that his conclusion that she had broken the ministerial code was overruled. And, to be frank, breaking the code is enough to warrant resignation or sacking.

But how could Sir Alex come to that conclusion, when he hadn't spoken to the 'accused'? That doesn't sound like fair justice.

I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, just that natural justice does not seem to take taken place.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But how could Sir Alex come to that conclusion, when he hadn't spoken to the 'accused'? That doesn't sound like fair justice.

I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, just that natural justice does not seem to take taken place.

Because fundamentally bullying is a perception issue, and it’s the perception of the victim that’s important. If enough people came forward, their evidence creates a picture of a pattern of behaviour.

 

[MotCO]

Because fundamentally bullying is a perception issue, and it’s the perception of the victim that’s important. If enough people came forward, their evidence creates a picture of a pattern of behaviour.

But who is not to say that the perception was wrong? Until you hear the other side of the argument, you cannot tell if the perception is valid or not.

 

[alex397]

But who is not to say that the perception was wrong? Until you hear the other side of the argument, you cannot tell if the perception is valid or not.

It is the perception of many people though, not just one, so a pattern emerges. I’m sure the investigators are capable of looking at things from both sides.

 

[MotCO]

It is the perception of many people though, not just one, so a pattern emerges. I’m sure the investigators are capable of looking at things from both sides.

But it still does not appear to be following natural justice. If enough of my friends attest that you are a stealing from the office petty cash, would you be sacked without your boss asking for your side of the story? (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing you of anything.)

 

[Cowley]

Being that she was investigated for her behaviour in her last three posts (International Development, Work and Pensions and The Home Office). Does this mean that she’s still currently working with some of the people that she’s been found guilty of bullying?
If so then that must be very uncomfortable for them.

 

[alex397]

But it still does not appear to be following natural justice. If enough of my friends attest that you are a stealing from the office petty cash, would you be sacked without your boss asking for your side of the story? (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing you of anything.)

I’m sure a decent boss would have a proper investigation rather than just hearing one side of the story.
It probably wouldn’t look good if I’ve been accused of stealing petty cash from three different employers though.

 

[MotCO]

I’m sure a decent boss would have a proper investigation rather than just hearing one side of the story.

Are we in agreement then?

 

[SuspectUsual]

I’m sure a decent boss would have a proper investigation rather than just hearing one side of the story.
It probably wouldn’t look good if I’ve been accused of stealing petty cash from three different employers though.

Or having been accused of stealing from the petty cash in two departments of a company being promoted to work in finance!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2020 ==

Being that she was investigated for her behaviour in her last three posts (International Development, Work and Pensions and The Home Office). Does this mean that she’s still currently working with some of the people that she’s been found guilty of bullying?
If so then that must be very uncomfortable for them.

Stand by for some constructive dismissal claims negotiated severance packages

 

[alex397]

Are we in agreement then?

No, not at all.

You seem to be suggesting that the investigation perhaps just listened to a few people, believed them, and then just said they were right. But I’m sure an official investigation would be a little bit more thorough than that!

 

[MotCO]

No, not at all.

You seem to be suggesting that the investigation perhaps just listened to a few people, believed them, and then just said they were right. But I’m sure an official investigation would be a little bit more thorough than that!

Yes, the investigator did speak to Civil Servants, but critically did not speak to the accused. That inherently does not feel right. To be 'thorough', they should have spoken to Priti.