Priti Patel

[KashmireHawker]

Quite brilliantly, around 20,000 folk are watching the doomed International Development Secretary's flight back to Heathrow, of which where she is due to be summoned to Number 10 to be issued with her P45 this afternoon: for several breaches of the Cabinet Code of Conduct.

I beg however that number of peeps don't follow my Politics group's flight from Manchester to Brussels, for 2 weeks today!

https://www.flightradar24.com/KQA100/f76cdcf

 

[Howardh]

"Sacked In The Evening" as a football crowd would sing. If she is sacked, I have read that she won't take it lying down.

Lying....how appropriate seeing as she's a devout Brexiter!

 

[overthewater]

If you read Reddit it seems its even more confusing.. Of course if anyone ever watched that classic "Secret society" Programme You'll know they're tones of secret cabinet meeting etc and no one knows about thanks Duncan Campbell.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/7bkioq/exclusive_no_10_knew_about_patel_meetings/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/no-10-knew-about-priti-patel-israel-meetings-1.447605

Number 10 instructed Development Secretary Priti Patel not to include her meeting with the Israel foreign ministry official Yuval Rotem in New York on 18 September in her list of undisclosed meetings with Israelis which was published on Monday, the JC has learned.

Ms Patel listed 12 meetings in the statement, and the emergence of two more last night is thought to have made her sacking imminent.

But the JC understands, from two different sources, that Ms Patel did disclose the meeting with Mr Rotem but was told by Number 10 not to include it as it would embarrass the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

In addition, the JC can reveal that although Ms Patel’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not authorised in advance, the British government was made aware of it within hours.

On 22 August - the same day as Ms Patel spoke to Mr Netanyahu - Middle East minister Alistair Burt and David Quarrey, the British Ambassador to Israel, met Michael Oren, Deputy Minister at the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. According to the notes of the meeting, Mr Oren referred to Ms Patel having had a successful meeting with Mr Netanyahu earlier.

It is understood that this information was then conveyed to Number 10.

In addition, Prime Minister Theresa May spoke to Ms Patel in advance of the UN General Assembly and they discussed the Development Secretary’s meeting with Mr Netanyahu, as well as the details of Ms Patel’s plan for UK aid to be shared with the Israelis. Mrs May agreed that the idea was sensible but needed sign off from the FCO.

Analysis: Stephen Pollard
Last night I wrote on the JC site that something didn’t add up about Number Ten’s claim that it had no idea about Priti Patel’s meetings with senior Israelis.

As I put it: “Well before last week's James Landale scoop about Ms Patel's meetings with Israeli politicians, I was told very matter of factly that there would soon be an announcement of cooperation between the UK and Israel over aid in Africa - that we would divert some of our aid money to the Israelis to fund some of their aid work there. I was told that it had been signed off between DfID and Number Ten, but that the FCO had kicked off because it felt its toes were being trodden on.”

After that story went up, I was contacted by two senior and reliable sources.

Both gave exactly the same story: that although Patel had clearly messed up and had to go, the real story was about Number 10.

Far from being unaware, Number 10 knew in full about her meeting with Mr Netanyahu, because Ms Patel had discussed it with the Prime Minister in September, prior to the UN General Assembly.,I then discovered this morning that Number 10 had been told by Ms Patel about her meeting with Israeli foreign office official Yuval Rotem in New York and had specifically asked her not to include it.,It is a truism that with most scandals, the real falloutcomes from the cover up.

My revelations today mean that there are some serious questions for Number 10 to answer about who knew what, when – including the PM.

 

[Howardh]

How much does it cost to go to an unfair dismissal tribunal?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I just want to know how Teresa May learnt to levitate, because all the blocks of credibility have been pulled out from under her government, yet it still floats there...

 

[overthewater]

I just want to know how Teresa May learnt to levitate, because all the blocks of credibility have been pulled out from under her government, yet it still floats there...

Simple fact is she won the most votes any government has ever won since 1992, DUP are happy as there getting what there want., and thus she has Maj in westminster. Also No on has the money to fight another election this year, Let alone next year. Its very doubtful an election in 2018 will give us a clear cut winner, and it may have to wait until 2019.

 

[Darandio]

Seems as though she is likely to resign rather than be pushed. #Prexit

 

[bramling]

I just want to know how Teresa May learnt to levitate, because all the blocks of credibility have been pulled out from under her government, yet it still floats there...

Because it really does seem that, at the moment, there's no decent alternative talent on *any* side, and TM seems to be universally regarded as the least-worst option.

My workplace was having a discussion yesterday saying that someone like Michael Portillo should come back.

 

[zuriblue]

The meeting with tea and no biscuits has taken place. She jumped before she was pushed.

 

[Howardh]

The meeting with tea and no biscuits has taken place. She jumped before she was pushed.

At least may now knows what a resignation letter looks like, time to write one herself? Admittedly it's unlikely as she has full control over all of her cabinet....

 

[306024]

No surprise there. She can run for PM from the back benches now.

On a rail related note she seemed to be fully behind Norwich in 90, until someone suggested it could mean a worse service for her Witham constituents, then it all went quiet.

 

[Bald Rick]

No surprise there. She can run for PM from the back benches now.

On a rail related note she seemed to be fully behind Norwich in 90, until someone suggested it could mean a worse service for her Witham constituents, then it all went quiet.

Ha ha! So true. Sam E applied to the Hon members for Manningtree and South Norfolk when it was suggested that you could do Norwich in 90 today for nothing by skipping their stations.

I met PP a long time ago. An extremely sharp cookie. Very ambitious. No scruples. She'll be back.

 

[Busaholic]

Time for a revival of the Sex Pistols' 'Priti Vacant'?

 

[takno]

met PP a long time ago. An extremely sharp cookie. Very ambitious. No scruples. She'll be back.

Isn't there a quote from various of her uni lecturers suggesting she was the stupidest person they'd ever taught? No idea if that's true but she seems like she's got as far as luck and no scruples is going to take her. The Tory party may be short on credible leaders right now, but nobody's ever suggested it was short of unscrupulous chancers

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't there a quote from various of her uni lecturers suggesting she was the stupidest person they'd ever taught? No idea if that's true but she seems like she's got as far as luck and no scruples is going to take her. The Tory party may be short on credible leaders right now, but nobody's ever suggested it was short of unscrupulous chancers

I've met a lot of MPs over the years. Most (but by no means all) appear to be reasonably intelligent. Around a fifth appear to be in the top drawer of smartness. Patel is in that category. I fundamentally disagree with some of the views she holds, but that doesn't make her stupid.

 

[Busaholic]

I've met a lot of MPs over the years. Most (but by no means all) appear to be reasonably intelligent. Around a fifth appear to be in the top drawer of smartness. Patel is in that category. I fundamentally disagree with some of the views she holds, but that doesn't make her stupid.

I've never met her, but the impression I've had of her over the years on 'Question Time' etc is that her views were blinkered and she (apparently) often failed to understand the questions she was being asked by members of the audience. She also may not have been alone among Brexiteers before the Referendum in saying 'we are perfectly clear' about what Leave meant, despite all evidence to the contrary, but she was the only one who used that form of words EVERY SINGLE TIME the subject came up. An unnamed Tory MP. a Brexiteer though, was quoted in today's press as saying 'she's not nearly as clever as she thinks she is' and her previous membership of the Referendum Party might indicate she's not as canny as she thinks either.

 

[Groningen]

Nevermind Priti Patel. Boris Johnson is much worse.

 

[najaB]

I've never met her, but the impression I've had of her over the years on 'Question Time' etc is that her views were blinkered and she (apparently) often failed to understand the questions she was being asked by members of the audience.

I can't speak particularly to Ms Patel, but I've often found that politicians appearing on programmes like Question Time arrive with a statement that they intend to make and will make it, whether or not it's relevant to the questions they are asked. Some politicians are better than others at making it at least seem like an answer.

 

[Busaholic]

I can't speak particularly to Ms Patel, but I've often found that politicians appearing on programmes like Question Time arrive with a statement that they intend to make and will make it, whether or not it's relevant to the questions they are asked. Some politicians are better than others at making it at least seem like an answer.

Indeed, and of current government politicians I would say Grayling and Johnson are the worst at not answering the question (other than the sainted Theresa, obviously) but look at how more adept Johnson appears to be at it. Patel was more Grayling-like i.e. totally humourless and robotic.

 

[Jonny]

I just want to know how Teresa May learnt to levitate, because all the blocks of credibility have been pulled out from under her government, yet it still floats there...

Perhaps if you knew the amount of dirt that was on Jeremy Corbyn, based on interactions with dubious figures in the Irish Republican movement who had not (at the time) renounced violence. Then there's his links to questionable regimes and other questionable characters in the Middle East. That, and his shadow cabinet are basically "yes men" (or yes people) who haven't got a clue on their own (mostly from being in the hard left social bubble).

 

[takno]

Perhaps if you knew the amount of dirt that was on Jeremy Corbyn, based on interactions with dubious figures in the Irish Republican movement who had not (at the time) renounced violence. Then there's his links to questionable regimes and other questionable characters in the Middle East. That, and his shadow cabinet are basically "yes men" (or yes people) who haven't got a clue on their own (mostly from being in the hard left social bubble).

All of that rather weak gruel played out at the election, and not enough people cared to give the Tories a victory. Going forward it really isn't going to win any arguments. Yes, the opposition from outside the party is weak, but how have we got to the point where other Tories are willing to put up with a shambles of a government which can at best only manage a draw with them?

 

[306024]

I can't speak particularly to Ms Patel, but I've often found that politicians appearing on programmes like Question Time arrive with a statement that they intend to make and will make it, whether or not it's relevant to the questions they are asked. Some politicians are better than others at making it at least seem like an answer.

Standard media training. Have a core statement and stick to it regardless.

 

[Jonny]

All of that rather weak gruel played out at the election, and not enough people cared to give the Tories a victory. Going forward it really isn't going to win any arguments. Yes, the opposition from outside the party is weak, but how have we got to the point where other Tories are willing to put up with a shambles of a government which can at best only manage a draw with them?

What concerned me is how little some people cared, in spite of three separate incidents during the campaign, or maybe some people did take it into account when casting their vote.

 

[SS4]

Perhaps if you knew the amount of dirt that was on Jeremy Corbyn, based on interactions with dubious figures in the Irish Republican movement who had not (at the time) renounced violence. Then there's his links to questionable regimes and other questionable characters in the Middle East.

We do know that because the media went on and on about it in multiple attempts to discredit him. Yet an increasing number of people didn't care as they saw him as the best way to get a fairer government for all and not just the rich (Paradise Papers). I hope that's a sign that the people are seeing through the misleading stuff the press puts out but I doubt it sadly

 

[takno]

What concerned me is how little some people cared, in spite of three separate incidents during the campaign, or maybe some people did take it into account when casting their vote.

Personally I don't think the shadow cabinet is fantastic, but it's at least on a par with the actual cabinet Theresa May put up, and there are far better people available in the Labour party to replace them. As to the rest, governments of all colours have been officially sucking up to some pretty appalling regimes in the middle east for as long as I can remember, so Jeremy Corbyn taking the odd meeting with someone I find unacceptable is just not that important. It's not like anybody missed the endlessly-repeated stories, so for all that they might have firmed up the Tories support by a couple of percent, most people didn't care, and some people clearly thought they were shameless unjustifiable spin.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nevermind Priti Patel. Boris Johnson is much worse.

Funny how all this was leaked about Patel just after Johnson's motormouth gave an innocent woman in Iran an extra five years in prison. Suddenly nobody is talking about the blonde-haired buffoon.

It's almost as if a notorious back-stabber stabbed her...

 

[Tetchytyke]

interactions with dubious figures in the Irish Republican movement

Yawn.

Also, have you seen who's running the DUP?!?!? Flinging muck about Sinn Fein doesn't work quite so well when you're being propped up by the bloody UVF.

As for Patel, I wouldn't comment on intelligence. Don't confuse sociopathy and narcissism for intelligence but don't confuse it for stupidity either.

 

[Busaholic]

Yawn.

Also, have you seen who's running the DUP?!?!? Flinging muck about Sinn Fein doesn't work quite so well when you're being propped up by the bloody UVF.

As for Patel, I wouldn't comment on intelligence. Don't confuse sociopathy and narcissism for intelligence but don't confuse it for stupidity either.

She's not stupid, probably slightly above average intelligence combined with extreme cunning, self-assurance and ambition, so on a par with another 50 or so Tory MPs and a few from other parties too. I've just been listening to Radio 4 'Analysis' programme, 15 minutes of biography and (interestingly, to me if nobody else) the conclusion from two admirers, one in the Tory hierarchy and one local to Witham, that she hadn;t got the emotional intelligence to become PM. But when was emotional intelligence a prerequisite of PM material? Discuss

 

[Bromley boy]

But when was emotional intelligence a prerequisite of PM material? Discuss

Absolutely never! Or perhaps a very high level is required, depending on how you look at it.

I reckon climbing the greasy pole to become PM, let alone remaining in post, requires an unhealthy dose of ambition, self belief bordering on narcissism, razor sharp elbows and a masterful ability to manipulate others. The sheer single-mindedness required means the kind of person who actually gets into this role will have a psychological makeup very unlike the rest of us.

Then again in a PM I reckon most of us want someone who is effective in the job more than someone we'd enjoy going to the pub with.

 

[Busaholic]

Absolutely never! Or perhaps a very high level is required, depending on how you look at it.

I reckon climbing the greasy pole to become PM, let alone remaining in post, requires an unhealthy dose of ambition, self belief bordering on narcissism, razor sharp elbows and a masterful ability to manipulate others. The sheer single-mindedness required means the kind of person who actually gets into this role will have a psychological makeup very unlike the rest of us.

Then again in a PM I reckon most of us want someone who is effective in the job more than someone we'd enjoy going to the pub with.

For what it's worth (absolutely nothing, of course) the best PM in the time I've been cognisant of them (since Anthony Eden, basically) was Harold Wilson, despite the devaluation of the pound in the late 1960s. He really was a canny operator and, I suspect, if it hadn't been for disinformation being spread by maverick British intelligence agents and their masters (think Putin and his goons in a non-computerised age, on a lesser scale) his stock would be higher now, certainly beyond Thatcher and Blair. His widow, Mary, is still alive aged 100+.