Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think Boris was a one-off. If the next PM screws up in this regard, the press will have no mercy. She's throwing herself on their mercy.

I just hope that this is a sincere start to the eradication of diversity officers/structures on the public payroll.


---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------



More like virtue signallers, Papa.

I’d rather be a "virtue signaller" than a "vice supporter"…

Anyhoo, not sure it’s virtue signalling to point out that your bestest buddy supports the abolition of an important checks and balances role that tries to ensure that Ministers follow the rules…

https://assets.publishing.service.go...April_2021.pdf

Ministers’ interests
Under the Ministerial Code (7.2), “it is the personal responsibility of each Minister to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their Permanent Secretary and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests”.

Ministers are required, upon appointment to each new office, to provide a full list of interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict (7.3). The independent adviser scrutinises all declarations and provides advice on the handling of interests (7.4). He is also able to provide advice on the handling of interests on an ad hoc basis.

So if this goes ahead, the person checking if newly-appointed Ministers have conflicts of interest will be the person who appointed them, so no conflict of interest there, then…

What’s next - she’’ll be signing off her own expenses?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think Boris was a one-off. If the next PM screws up in this regard, the press will have no mercy. She's throwing herself on their mercy.

I just hope that this is a sincere start to the eradication of diversity officers/structures on the public payroll.

I don't think an ethics adviser is the same type of role as a diversities adviser.

Truss is now showing some worrying Johnsonesque traits with regard to accountability and has been called out by many on her honesty eg about her schooling.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/liz-truss...undhay-school/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think an ethics adviser is the same type of role as a diversities adviser.

Truss is now showing some worrying Johnsonesque traits with regard to accountability and has been called out by many on her honesty eg about her schooling.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/liz-truss...undhay-school/

I'm not going to defend her. My Truss vote is given under protest and in the hope that JR's influence will assist good outcomes.



---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I’d rather be a "virtue signaller" than a "vice supporter"…

Anyhoo, not sure it’s virtue signalling to point out that your bestest buddy supports the abolition of an important checks and balances role that tries to ensure that Ministers follow the rules…

https://assets.publishing.service.go...April_2021.pdf



So if this goes ahead, the person checking if newly-appointed Ministers have conflicts of interest will be the person who appointed them, so no conflict of interest there, then…

What’s next - she’’ll be signing off her own expenses?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The first "crisis" of this type will be fairly decisive.

I don't think she'll be any good as PM but I'd not be worried if an ethics advisor was not on the payroll.

The point of the Ministerial Advisor is prevention - isn’t it better to avoid a crisis with appropriate checks and balances, rather than be disappointed/aggrieved when someone breaks the rules and is caught out (or worse, gets away with it because the good governance is no longer in place).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The point of the Ministerial Advisor is prevention - isn’t it better to avoid a crisis with appropriate checks and balances, rather than be disappointed/aggrieved when someone breaks the rules and is caught out (or worse, gets away with it because the good governance is no longer in place).

If someone breaks the rules, they can be sanctioned by their manager (including the PM) so long as the PM is not Boris.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If someone breaks the rules, they can be sanctioned by their manager (including the PM) so long as the PM is not Boris.

Surely you would prefer us not to get to this stage by the PM taking advice to prevent it happening from an expert ethics adviser?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely you would prefer us not to get to this stage by the PM taking advice to prevent it happening from an expert ethics adviser?

I would prefer that we get back as soon as possible to a normal hierarchical (but collaborative) managerial system.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

"us" being who exactly?

Not you, I think, Ian!

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

IMHO the only good advice he can give Truss is to call an election. Anything else is just padding out the inevitable and will keep the Conservatives out of power for longer as they will be remembered as the party of low ethics, high fuel prices and a recession.

A shrewd move would be to let Starmer win and govern during the recession. Then five years down say "We told you they couldn't be trusted with the economy" and win another three terms.

The more you guys come out against Truss, the more I want her to win!

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just like she judged having an affair which broke up a marriage was OK?

Well, some of us don't want a politically correct moralist in charge. We want a human.

Are you sure you are not without your faults, Hugh?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>

Well, some of us don't want a politically correct moralist in charge. We want a human.

Are you sure you are not without your faults, Hugh?

Grammatically/semantically, Hugh cannot be without his faults.

[Mad Max]

Nice to see Boris in Ukraine today.


https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...e-day-12680447

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The more you guys come out against Truss, the more I want her to win

We're just pointing out the red flags. If you decline to see them there's not much anyone can do about it.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, some of us don't want a politically correct moralist in charge. We want a human.

No one has asked for the Prime Minister to be politically correct, just that they appoint an ethics adviser given that it is good practice and ethics (not ambush by cake or the war in Ukraine) was the reason for the downfall of the last PM.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Are you sure you are not without your faults, Hugh?

We've all got our faults, old Boy. Which is why in senior roles, it's useful to have advisers and to heed their advice.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, some of us don't want a politically correct moralist in charge. We want a human.

I agree. Can't we bring this boring 'contest' to a finnish in a dance off between Rishi, Liz and Sanna Marin? We'd have the winner today

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not you, I think, Ian!

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------



The more you guys come out against Truss, the more I want her to win!

---------- Post added at 16:15 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------



Well, some of us don't want a politically correct moralist in charge. We want a human.

Are you sure you are not without your faults, Hugh?

That’s an interesting* interpretation - so someone who doesn’t have an affair and doesn’t break up a marriage is "a politically correct moralist"?

Mind you, you were/are a vociferously sycophantic Johnson supporter, and he has the morals of a alley-cat, making his mistresses pregnant and having an affair whilst his wife underwent cancer treatment, and was fired twice for lying, so I suppose that’s your baseline for acceptable behaviour.

I have many faults, but having affairs and breaking up marriages aren’t amongst them - ymmv.

*totally against Tory "family values"

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We're just pointing out the red flags. If you decline to see them there's not much anyone can do about it.


No one has asked for the Prime Minister to be politically correct, just that they appoint an ethics adviser given that it is good practice and ethics (not ambush by cake or the war in Ukraine) was the reason for the downfall of the last PM.


We've all got our faults, old Boy. Which is why in senior roles, it's useful to have advisers and to heed their advice.

If you thought about it, you could name many sorts of advisor. I'm sure that as PM, Liz Truss does not need an advisor for every pettyfogging decision she makes.

And certainly not one who goes around advising on conflicts of interest. I would have thought that was pretty self evident. We need to cut all the waste in government, not add to it.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s an interesting* interpretation - so someone who doesn’t have an affair and doesn’t break up a marriage is "a politically correct moralist"?

Mind you, you were/are a vociferously sycophantic Johnson supporter, and he has the morals of a alley-cat, making his mistresses pregnant and having an affair whilst his wife underwent cancer treatment, and was fired twice for lying, so I suppose that’s your baseline for acceptable behaviour.

I have many faults, but having affairs and breaking up marriages aren’t amongst them - ymmv.

*totally against Tory "family values"

Sorry, did you mean 'yet'?

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely you would prefer us not to get to this stage by the PM taking advice to prevent it happening from an expert ethics adviser?

We want to prevent another nuclear war. Does she need to appoint an advisor for that?

We want to prevent more boats coming across the North Sea. Does she need another advisor for that?

We want to prevent more terrorist attacks. Does she need another advisor for that?

The truth is, there are many things we need to prevent, and many things to address, but we rely on the guy at the top to make these decisions and bring in expertise as required.

All the overkill seems to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate and slow everything down. We have a lot of issues to resolve in a very short time. The PM needs to be freed up to deal with things as she sees fit. If she gets it wrong, the GE will judge her on any failures.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you thought about it, you could name many sorts of advisor. I'm sure that as PM, Liz Truss does not need an advisor for every pettyfogging decision she makes.

And certainly not one who goes around advising on conflicts of interest. I would have thought that was pretty self evident. We need to cut all the waste in government, not add to it.

No one's suggesting Truss needs an advisor for every decision she makes. But an ethics adviser seems pretty essential given the ethical issues Johnson's team has failed the electorate on.