Prime Ministers can usually expect a high level of support from their civil servants. Until they alienate them, that is. And it looks as if that is what Starmer has succeeded in doing. I share this Tweet from Steven Swinford of The Times as evidence of that.
I post it in full, because it summarises the latest farcical mess that Starnmer has created for himself, wholly unnecessarily and over a remarkably short period of time, rather well:
What else is there to say? Only that Laurel and Hardy could not have created as many fine messes as Starmer has. That is how absurd this is, and the cost will be high.
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!
[…] 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 […]
I keep coming back to the report that 80% of his team thought he was a poor leader when he was DPP.
Redundancy? Is the role of cabinet secretary no longer required?
Getting rid of politicians is ruinously expensive too, especially Ministers and Prime Ministers, what with their severance pay, their lifetime allowance and their lifetime police protection (and whatever redecorations they demanded in Downing St.).
It’s okay if they’ve done two full terms, but some of them only manage 7 weeks.
Does anyone know of any study on the cost of Prime Ministers including all those golden handshakes, since 2016 onwards? David (I’m entitled) Cameron set the tone, as he whistled away from his resignation podium, collected his lifetime allowances, and signed up for Greensill’s bungs.
Can we ask them to leave all their freebies behind when they leave?