I noted Sue Gray's resignation yesterday, with good reason.
What I did not note was the fact that, as a consequence, she was appointed to a new role as the 'prime minister's envoy for nations and regions.'
I will be as restrained as I can be when asking what such a person is, what that role is, and what its creation says?
As far as I can recall, no such appointment has ever existed before. But, then, until very recently, the direction of travel when it came to devolution was that it was inevitably in the direction of greater independence. The same was true of 'the regions' (whatever that term means): powers were being devolved.
My sense is that the signalling now is that Sue Gray has been appointed to deliver bad news. Starmer is a total wimp and very obviously not inclined to stand up to anyone. So, as a sop to the sacked Gray, he has appointed her to take out his message to what I suspect he thinks to be the 'provinces' so that she might tell them two things. The first is not to argue with London. The second is to keep paying the taxes demanded. Such was the role of a Roman governor of old. The task of Sue Gray will be to say something very similar.
I presume it never occurred to Starmer to ask the 'nations and the regions' whether they wanted an envoy, or whether they had an opinion on who that envoy might be. Instead, Starmer has just foisted the failed Sue Gray on them.
If Starmer wanted to alienate Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Red Wall all at the same time, this is how to do it.
This man really is incompetent. Maybe the nations and regions should appoint envoys to send that message to him.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Envoys /from/ Westminster?
I think Keir Starmer would do far better to listen to the envoys the nations and regions send to Parliament – our elected representatives.
But why would he do that?
He is not interested in their views: he wants people to listen to him.
I suspect you’re right.
The idea of being elected to serve the public’s needs rather than one’s own wants seem to have been long forgotten – if it did exist in the first place.
His complete lack of a plan and his total reluctance to offer any opinions worked very well for him in the run up to the G.E.
Now that the people are beginning to see this (at last!), ignoring their opinions is the easiest (possibly the only) way forward for him.
It won’t work for long though, and I really hope that Scotland plays a big part in hastening his demise.
It’s clear that gray does not have a brief, a budget, or power to do anything required in this role. So much so it is obviously obvious that she will end up being like a UN special rapporteur co-writing reports telling people what they’re doing wrong.
Good lord – ‘envoy’.
With such language you’d expect someone to be travelling thousands of miles into a foreign land. But maybe our regions and shires are foreign lands now to Westminster?
Surely this language betrays the huge gap in perception between those in government and the country they are supposed to be managing?
It is also a sign of the over centralisation of power as well. To keep to the agenda of London based capital, Stymied is going to need someone to take the message to the unwilling masses.
Up here in Scotland he doesn’t even listen to the branch manager of his own party.
So far Starmer’s key skill appears to be in being patronising to anyone who isn’t himself, his coterie, or those who pay his tailor. (But a least his trousers do cover his ankles).
Would she also need a peerage to do this job? She’s not an MP is she.
But it will be the price for keeping her quiet. Imagine the book – ‘100 days of chaos with Keir’
And of course it links in beautifully with the fiefdoms being set up ( SEZs) so she can make official visits to the ‘Lords’ and report back to the ‘King’.
But, but what about the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray? Him of the Union Flag suit (and what a sight that was).
What’s he supposed to do now that “the most powerful (ex-)civil servant you’ve never heard of” Sue Gray, is usurping his much vaunted position.
Wee soul.
Love this from the National this morning:
Simon Hoare, a Tory MP who serves as the chair of Westminster’s Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, questioned Gray’s position. He said: “Isn’t that the role of the Scottish Secretary, the Welsh Secretary, the NI Secretary and the Local Government Ministerial team?
“Her new job does sound a bit like the Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief’s Chief Assistant.”
We already have a Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief’s Chief Assistant; Anas Sarwar MSP, Leader of Scottish Labour (the Assistant Party’s Chief, who is the Assistant to the Chief Party’s Chief, who has two Assistant Chiefs, both Envoys to whom the Assistant Party’s Chief reports).
There is it is; quite simple really.
What on earth motivated her to join this shower?
She thought it as Labour.
Starmer conned her too
Rumour has she was sackedc for sticking up for the £28bn for the Green New Deal – and being far too pro-Corbyn as a result
Yes Cornwall would like to have an envoy! A proper devolved package for Cornwall is what is really needed.
Sue Gray was originally tasked with investigating and calling to account the antics of the Tories during Covid. Starmer appointed her: a PR exercise in suggesting that his government would not be mired in sleaze (it’s all about the ‘optics’). That would have been OK if it wasn’t for, not just all the clothes and spectacles and VIP tickets, but also the millions funneled into both Starmer’s leadership campaign, the general election, and to the likes of Wes Streeting from fossil fuel, pharma and private health care, and asset management with the murky involvement of tax-avoiding hedge funds which turned ‘squeaky clean’ Sue Gray into a liability.
And so Starmer demanded her resignation, whilst offering a post as envoy to the colonies, and appointed Morgan McSweeney – the conduit of most of the money which financed ‘Labour Together’, the plot against Corbyn and against left-wing online media, their chosen leadership candidate’s campaign and so on – along with failures to register much of this activity, as anyone who read the recent Guardian revelations will well know. Better to have one of your own in charge than someone who you thought a good PR move.
But McSweeney is just as likely to blow up in his own face as a lot of the membership must now be seething with rage.
Yes indeed, we seem to have elected the corruption well ahead of the politics.
On her visits to us in the colonies, will she wear a safari suit and pith helmet and travel atop an elephant.
Two days ago I’d never heard of Mr Mcsweeney. Now, I get the impression he’s behind most of what I detest about Starmer. Starmer is clearly not the one in control. Sue Gray was always well thought of; why has she accepted this non-job?
To try to save face
It took 14 Year’s for the British people to detest the last Conservative administration it has taken 3 months to grow tired of Keith Rodney Starmer and his clique of Clowns I guarantee there will be another General election within the next few months
I doubt that there will be an election – except for Labour leader
@Adam. Myself and I’m sure a lot of people detested the tories for a lot longer than the 14 years they actually governed, but yes, Labour seems to be fast tracking along the long, dark corridors of power to unpopular political party at a fair rate of knots!
Hmmm I didn’t know anything about this McSweeney either, but I found some stuff on Wikipedia including: ‘…In September 2023, New Statesman ranked McSweeney third on a list of the most influential left-wing figures in the UK and described him as Starmer’s “most trusted aide” …’
I query the use of ‘left-wing’ in this context, but certainly seems to be a smart operator and a force to be reckoned with.
A right-wing force
Did not ‘conquered’ tribes of the Roman Empire, Picts. Visigoths et al, occasionally return the heads of Roman Envoys sans bodies to register disapproval and non-compliance of edicts?
The inevitable conclusion was the sacking of Rome.
I wonder what today’s equivalent will be.
The dissolution of the Union?