This takes the Ministerial Code investigation to a new level.

Coming at moment Patel report is published

"having considered Sir Alex’s advice and weighing up all the factors, the Prime Minister’s judgement is that the Ministerial Code was not breached"…
Allan's conclusion is different from PM

Allan defines bullying as 'intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down'

"Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition"
The report also criticises the Home Office for some of the failing relationship between Home Sec and dept. Does not ascribe blame to individuals, but must be seen in context of Rutnam resignation and ongoing employment case there.
But, which will also prove hugely controversial, the report also says is sympathetic to Patel in terms of the fact that she knew her behaviour.

This is the origin of the 'unintentional' bullying phrase.
This speaks to wider issue also seen in Parliament and bullying case - whether staff feel able to bring grievances when there are unequal power relationships. How easy is it to tell senior person what their behaviour amounts to if you fear your job may be affected?
There are many wider qs from this case about failings of ministerial code.

- Does it protect civil servants from ministerial behaviour, no matter how explicit the code is?
- Are ministerial code investigations fair process to all involved?
- How should future cases be handled?
But more than the just the case and the findings, the delay to publication may have fatally undermined the code, and apparently the job of the independent investigator (will wait to see what Allan says, if anything).
The issue of whether Patel should resign is for PM.

But saying it is not a breach when your investigator says it is undermines the probe and the Code itself.
But the bigger question is whether an investigation into bullying by ministers itself becomes politicised both in terms of such a lengthy delay and, if reports correct, trying to get report changed. That is hugely damaging to trust
The whole affair of this Inquiry undermines arguments for keeping the Code as a document where PM is both judge and jury.

Publishing the code in 1992 was supposed to be about trust.
The role of Independent investigator was supposed to be about trust.

Time for new model?
“I recognise that it is for the Prime Minister to make a judgement on whether actions by a Minister amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code. But I feel that it is right that I should now resign from my position as the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on the Code.”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dr Catherine Haddon

Dr Catherine Haddon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cath_haddon

18 Nov
Great q from @Emma_Norris - biggest failure from govt on compliance and what should be top priority now?

@xtophercook unsurprisingly references Cummings

But also lack of consensus and common endeavour on Manchester tiered change, and overall lack of sense of end goal from govt
Agreement from @ProfAnnJohn that Cummings was big hit to trust but also u-turns, and lack of transparency about what is driving decisions, including awarding contracts. #ifgcorona
Issue with Cummings was the ‘one rule for them’ says @ReicherStephen

Says govt went for paternalism followed by punishment. Most deprived groups hit hardest should not be blamed but supported.

“public must be partner not problem to be punished, blamed and managed” #ifgcorona
Read 4 tweets
28 Jun
Looks like we'll talking Cabinet Secretaries for the next little while.

The role is a complex mix of duties and different levers of power.

The late Jeremy Heywood went over his duties in a speech to @instituteforgov in 2015. He even had a pie chart of how he spent his time...
Heywood on how the role shifts depending on the PM, though some of the basics stay the same:

“It doesn’t particularly change as one person succeeds another… but rather depends on the circumstances. It changes according to the tastes and preferences of the Prime Minister.”
1. The role of secretary to cabinet. "The one irreducible task of being Cabinet Secretary”

It might seem the most routine part - helping prepare agenda and papers, writing minutes and circulating action points - But from this the role as fulcrum in Cabinet Govt flows.
Read 18 tweets
19 Oct 19
These are both motions for the deal and for no deal
Motion 1
Motion 2
Read 5 tweets
24 Sep 19
What to look out for from Supreme Court case at 10.30- a thread

See *plenty* lawyers on here for detailed commentary on the judgment. But first effect will be political: what will govt and opposition(s) be worrying about this morning? What does it mean for what happens next...
Series recap: there are two high level questions: 1. Is proroguing Parliament something courts can make judgement on, (‘is it justiciable?’) - this also leads to qs about court’s role re both royal prerogative and making judgments that tread into area of procedures of Parl
2. Was it lawful? Depends on first q, but then comes down to multiple qs of their view on what is lawful prorogation, on what basis can it be measured, what evidence were they presented, what defence, etc etc- detail of judgment on that will be pored over for a long while.
Read 16 tweets
11 Sep 19
This ruling is that it was the PM's advice to the Queen on prorogation is unlawful.

That does not (yet) change the prorogation itself. Though of course will add to pressure

Supreme Court on all this is next Tuesday.
Regardless of the final outcome, it is pretty uncomfortable position for the Palace.

HM acts on the Advice of her PM. For a court to rule that advice was unlawful, even if the ruling is later rejected, opens up qs about how that advice is given. She has to be able to trust No.10
To add, this does not mean prorogation will not be affected. But it has been prorogued. It can be recalled.
Read 5 tweets
6 Sep 19
OK, so now being asked a lot about PM resignations and advice to the Queen. Not going to go back over all the complications of this, just set out what the Cabinet Manual says.…
Para 2.8
"...If the Prime Minister resigns on behalf of the Government, the Sovereign will invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government."
So in case of outgoing minority PM resigning, for whatever reason, key is who the Queen then turns to. The bit that leads to MANY discussions is the 'most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House'. Tricky without a formal process to prove it.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!