So why does everything he touch turn to shit?
1 Like
Iām not sure it does? Not really. Admittedly I might be comparing him to others who are actual total fuckwits (Truss, Grayling etc) so he might just be looking ācompetentā by comparison but one of my best mates is high up in the MoJ and described him positively in those terms following his experience of working there when Gove was Justice Minister. He should never have been removed from this brief, imo.
But heās largely done a good job everywhere heās gone, hasnāt he? He even managed to last for 4 years as Education Secretary and thatās a notorious poisoned chalice. After the MoJ he went to the Environment where he also did a good job, in my opinion.
I think at least in part because he does what is asked of him by those he views as he needs to please.
Donāt think so. Not unless you measure it by loyalty towards those with power.
It depends on your expectations and the metrics you want to employ! He does work fairly collaboratively with other stakeholders though. Taking measures (or reversing previous decisions) that are generally commended by relevant interested bodies.
Apparently known as Michael āhave aā Gove within the Civil Service, from his ability to get jobs heās patently incapable of doing.
My favourite Gove moment was him starting to say heād also driven to test his eyesight before realising what a completely absurd notion that was, while actually saying it.
3 Likes
Well, my expectations are a bit higher than this, and while he is capable of working collaboratively with other stakeholders, I think it fair to say he frequently doesnāt.
I canāt think of a single SoS for Education thatās served for more than a year who hasnāt had a dispute with the NUT. Generally heās seen as having done a reasonable job in a department where thatās probably considered an outstanding achievement!
Priti Prattle is a prat. Iām sorry, but I had to get it off my chest.
3 Likes
I think Gove is talented but I personally would have him as far away from the cabinet as possible.
He has a talent for saying things that are open to interpretation, that can be implied either way. He can appear to be condemning an action, but he is instead stating the obvious. Repeating back an abstract version of the question, and answering that.
To a specific question about actions of an individual accused of fraud or racism or something of that sort. He will say are you asking if MPs should be allowed to perform illegal activities ? no I dont.
He avoids condemnation of any group or individuals with words that can bite him in the arse. He states the bleeding obvious. By reframing the question. He is very careful with his prerehearsed words.
1 Like
The shit bucket continues to overflow. Even the soft right BBC running such headlines
1 Like
I donāt understand this line in the BBC article:
A Department of Health source said Mr Hancock had discussed the fact he was to be gifted shares in the firm with civil servants before he accepted them.
Surely the ministerial code rules out acceptance of gifts, whatever the circumstances, like the LGA1972 does for local government or am I reading that sentence incorrectly and he wasnt gifted the shares?
2 Likes
Donāt know. Judging from the article I assume you just have to declare them and ensure there is no conflict of interest.
The LGA 1972 doesnāt bar the acceptance of gifts under any circumstances. Section 117(2) is qualified for this reason.
Itās about disclosure. Hancock first sought approval, got it, then disclosed it once he had been transferred the shares. The contract was also awarded by the Labour run NHS in Wales, so not even his department.
Probably nothing āwrongā in this but the optics donāt look great. If it is allowed, it shouldnāt be - if only to ensure propriety is not only achieved but seen to be achieved.
Isnāt it cynical how people think accepting a 15% share option in a company before giving them a lucrative NHS contract could possibly be seen as improper.
Itās probably just a coincidence. Like all the other ones.
4 Likes
Itās one of those where he can probably claim heās done nothing wrong, but in reality a health secretary should not have any financial interest in a company bidding for health contracts.
1 Like
Itās a bit like David Cameron owning a pig farm, itās just not a good look.
7 Likes
I think it should be more nuanced than this. I think a Health Secretary is perfectly entitled to hold financial interests in companies that bid for contracts from the NHS but it then depends upon how that financial interest is held, the timing of when it became held, the extent of it, its controlling nature, and whether he/she has any involvement in the awarding of the contract. If any of those raise red flags then it crosses the line.
So, for instance, a Health Secretaryās ownership of shares through a Pension Scheme in a company that bids for and is awarded NHS contracts through a process that he has no involvement in, absolutely fine.
A company substantially controlled by a family member transferring a significant % shareholding to him just at the point it is tendering for NHS contracts (even ones devolved) for apparently zero consideration. Even if this is technically allowed it shouldnāt be. There is a concept of seeking the recusal of members of the judiciary on grounds of bias. One aspect is āactual biasā where the judge has an interest in the matter to be determined and/or has expressed views indicating bias. The other is āapparent biasā where even though the judge may not have any bias at all or where there may not be any evidence of bias, there is a risk that bias could nonetheless be perceived. Such as where one of the advocates may have had cause to complain about them in the past.
This arrangement falls into a similar category, imo. There may not be any actual bias here but the appearance of bias is so strong that really it should not be allowed. If the rules do allow it, they should be changed.
1 Like
Questions I have before I go back to my hiatus.
a) Council staff are not allowed to accept gifts. Does this also apply to MPās? perhaps it should.
b) Yes he declared the shares. Why didnāt he declare that the firm was owned by his sister? Maybe because he hoped no one would notice??
c) Why was he given the shares?
2 Likes
a) Yes they are, with approval.
b) The ownership is listed publicly with Companies House. There could have been no expectation that this familial connection would not have been picked up. I have not seen any indication to suggest that he didnāt declare his family connection so this seems to be an allegation at this stage rather than fact.
c) This is the main one for me. Apparently they were given to him. Why? If he didnāt pay for them was there any other form of consideration offered, given or expected?
1 Like