It is widely reported that Sir Keir Starmer wants Dame Antonia Romeo to be the new Cabinet Secretary, having sacked the last one he appointed after just a year in office without good reason, according to the civil service.
There is just one problem with the appointment. Mr Romeo is, according to Wikipedia:
a managing partner in charge of North America for Oliver Wyman,
And Oliver Wyman is, again according to Wikipedia:
As a global management consulting firm, Oliver Wyman provides advice and analysis on how companies can improve their performance. The firm undertakes a variety of notable projects in the automotive, defense, education, energy, healthcare, telecommunications, transportation, and travel industries, but is particularly distinguished in the financial services sector. Through its partners, the company regularly contributes to business publications such as the Forbes, Harvard Business Review, The Financial Times, and The Wall Street Journal. It generates over $500,000 in revenue per consultant, a figure that is more than double the national average and comes in second only to McKinsey & Company.
My emphasis added.
Oliver Wyman is a very popular consulting firm with our government.
So, here is a simple question: how can conflicts of interest be avoided if Dame Antonio Romeo is head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary and her husband is profiting from contracts she or those she is responsible for might have to approve? Surely that is not possible?
Is this appointment wise in that case? How can it get ethics approval?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I didn’t know about any of this, however, I read somewhere yesterday, re this proposed appointment to the top civil service job, that this lady has made some dodgy expenses claims from the state and that she’s been accused of bullying and harassment of staff.
Could it get much worse?
For Starmer?
I thought there appointments were supposed to be independent of the prime minister and that Boris Johnson was seen in bad light for getting rid of one he didn’t like and appointing Simon Case. To get rid of your own appointment without good reason, to appoint someone with a lacklustre background seems particularly poor judgement and manipulation.
Ah – honorable Richard! there is simple solution: Chinese wall – there/not there, not pretend/pretend. How work?
Romeo household: “home darling!” “evening darling – is the Chinese wall up” “yes darling – cann’t you see it?” “ah yes – there it is” “so how was the Brit gov today?” “it was fine (passes note to hubby)” “oh that’s good (passes note back) – red or white?” “oh some red (passes note back with comments) thanks”.
Chinese walls. I am very confident that something like this will be proposed and the great British MSM will lap it up.
It just got worse. The ban on Palestine action has been found unlawful. The good news for Starmer is that there will be more available prison space now as there will have to be a lot of releases and compensation which will not be so good for him or Cooper.
If Starmer had any sense he would immediately back the court’s judgement, and block any further appeals, thus potentially rehabilitating his parlous reputation.
And pigs might fly.
I was going to raise this – this is getting too cosy by half.
As far as I am concerned there has been the softest of coup’s in this country and we are (as I have said) no longer a functioning democracy.
We have walked gently into an authoritarian era I’m afraid. Typically English way of doing things to over the pond where they do not give shit and do it in broad daylight. But when all is said and done, both in the United kingdom and Ireland, and U.S. all the rich want is compliant consumers who fuck off and die when they are no longer needed.
You may be right
Sunday’s podcast will appeal to you then. I have just edited it.
Don’t get two excited, the ban remains pending appeal, and of course the government is appealing, although there was some doubt if there were any judges left who could take the appeal and so it might have to go direct to the Supreme Court. The judgement from the High Court said that Cooper had lied to Parliament in her original justification for the ban.
Perhaps it is of more than passing interest that much of her work has facilitated cooperation and engagement that is beneficial to U.S. economic and strategic interests.
Just to point out that she too worked for Oliver Wyman before she became a civil servant, I suppose that is where she met her other half? They have had a cosy set-up so far given the nature of her previous Civil Service New York role and F.O. job. It already feels too slimy! Since becoming PM Starmer has demonstrated that he is more than a little cloth eared, numb skulled and cack handed, consequently its more than likely she will get the job and accelerate his decline. He is totally unsuitable to lead anything, which begs the question, is the PLP blind and dumb?