Tag Archives: Adam

Sharp resigns as BBC chairman after report finds conflicts of interest

Cronyism? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.

We all knew this was going to happen; it was just a matter of time.

Richard Sharp has resigned as BBC Chairman after an investigation found he did not mention “potential perceived” conflicts of interest before his appointment to the role.

These include telling then-prime minister Boris Johnson that he wanted to apply for the role before doing so, and arranging a meeting between Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Simon Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson’s who wanted to provide financial support to the then-prime minister (the sum of £800,000 has been mentioned in the past). It seems that meeting did not take place.

The investigation did not pass judgement on whether Sharp had any intention to influence the former PM. This would be impossible to gauge unless Sharp actually admitted it.

The report by barrister Adam Heppinstall found “there is a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp was recommended for appointment” because he sought to assist the PM in a private financial matter “and/or that he influenced the former prime minister to recommend him by informing him of his application before he submitted it”.

It is likely that the conclusion is phrased in this way because it is impossible to say for certain whether either act influenced Johnson without Johnson admitting it, and that was never likely to happen.

The report notes that Sharp did not accept the first finding but has apologised for the second. He has called the breach of public appointment rules “inadvertent and not material”.

The problem is, he did not mention either matter to the appointments panel during the scrutiny process that took place before he took up the role as BBC Chairman, so its members did not have an opportunity to consider for themselves whether these matters were inadvertent and immaterial.

And he should have mentioned them, because it is specifically demanded in the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code: “If you have any interests that might be relevant to the work of the BBC, and which could lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest if you were to be appointed, please provide details in your application.”

Instead, the potential conflicts of interest were revealed by The Sunday Times in January, triggering a wave of speculation and condemnation.

No other applicant was able to indicate an interest in the job to Boris Johnson in advance, remember. And it seems a pre-briefing in October 2020 sought to influence other potential candidates not to apply for the role because Johnson had Sharp in mind for it.

Sharp’s claim that he knew nothing of Boris Johnson’s financial affairs when arranging the meeting between Mr Case and Mr Blyth rings false; how would he have known Johnson might want a loan otherwise?

And it seems unrealistic that a man with years of experience in the business world would not realise there would be a perceived conflict of interest because of his having been involved in facilitating a possible loan to the then-prime minister.

Sharp was questioned strongly about the matter by the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee – one of whose members, SNP MP John Nicolson, said afterwards: “It leaves the impression so much of this is deeply ‘Establishment’; it’s pals appointing pals, donating money to pals.

“It rather leaves the impression that it is all a bit… ‘banana republic’ and cosy.”

The committee’s conclusion was that Sharp’s conduct showed serious errors of judgement.

In that case, it is right that he should go. He might commit similar errors as BBC boss.

The question is: what happens next?

The Sharp affair has raised serious questions about cronyism in public appointments.

Until the public can be reassured that no such ‘Establishment’ or ‘banana republic’ behaviour is taking place, it seems unlikely that we will ever trust the terms on which any other such public appointment takes place.

Who’s going to be the next BBC chair – Owen Paterson?


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Raab’s resignation over bullying is a sign of Sunak’s weakness

Happier times for them: Dominic Raab and Rishi Sunak.

Dominic Raab has resigned as Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, after making Rishi Sunak wait a day for him to do it.

He went with the ill grace that has characterised his ministerial career – blaming anybody else he could find.

An inquiry by Adam Tolley KC investigated eight allegations of bullying against Raab, and found him guilty of two.

He handed his report to prime minister Rishi Sunak on Thursday morning (April 21),

It seems Sunak then sat on it for 24 hours, waiting for Raab to do the right thing and resign.

Downing Street says no pressure was applied to Raab and there is no indication that Sunak ever considered sacking him. Resigning means Raab gets to keep his Ministerial pension, and this means that – in practice – any Tory Cabinet Minister found to have committed misdeeds is given the opportunity to resign. Remember how Priti Patel left Theresa May’s Cabinet?

According to the BBC, the report states that:

on a number of occasions, while meeting with policy officials, Raab “acted in a manner which was intimidating, in the sense of going further than was necessary or appropriate in delivering critical feedback, and also insulting, in the sense of making unconstructive critical comments about the quality of work done (whether or not as a matter of substance any criticism was justified).”

It concludes that while implementing a certain decision in the role “he acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting.

“His conduct also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. He introduced an unwarranted punitive element.”

It looks at his behaviour in meetings with officials as justice secretary, and picks out an example where Raab complained about the absence of “basic information” from officials, about staff “whom he perceived to be resistant to his policies, and described some work as “utterly useless” and “woeful”.

Raab’s “interruptive style” is not in itself intimidating, the report says, but the combination of this with “unconstructive critical feedback is likely to have been experienced as intimidating, in the sense of being unreasonably difficult to deal with”.

It seems Raab had said he would resign if there was any finding of bullying at all and Sunak had simply waited for him to honour his word. Caught between a rock and a hard place – the findings of the report were always going to be publicised and his comments were already public knowledge – it was just a matter of time before Raab went.

But he didn’t go quietly.

Instead, he complained that Mr Tolley had set his standard for bullying at a very low level, meaning his inquiry had “set a dangerous precedent”.

Was this true, though? It seems to me that, if six allegations had been dismissed, then there must at least have been some reasonable basis for the level at which Mr Tolley decided bullying had taken place.

In his resignation letter, Raab made it clear that he did not agree with the findings against him. He said ministers “must be able to give direct critical feedback on briefings and submissions to senior officials, in order to set the standards and drive the reform the public expect of us.

“In setting the threshold for bullying so low, this inquiry has set a dangerous precedent.

“It will encourage spurious complaints against ministers, and have a chilling effect on those driving change on behalf of your government – and ultimately the British people.”

In another part of the letter he said he was “genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice”.

This has been described as a “non-apology” by a person who “advised him at a senior level in a government department”. This person said: “Whilst the letter contains an apology, it’s one of the best examples of a ‘non-apology’ from a minister in recent years. It’s relatively easy to set pace, standards and challenge, it’s much harder to lead effectively to deliver against these objectives.”

This person continued: “Raab’s version of a Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister is one that should be learnt from and ultimately consigned to the history books. The level of relief from hard-working civil servants who can now, under new leadership, get on with the challenging and important jobs they signed up to do, is palpable.”

That claim has been borne out by responses to the BBC by civil servants. One said: “I feel relief – just huge relief.”

Another added: “It’s perhaps of note from his letter that he feels there are different, perhaps acceptable thresholds of bullying, which perhaps says all it needs to say about this whole fiasco.”

Sunak himself has stated that there were “shortcomings in the historic process” by which the inquiry was carried out, that have “negatively affected everyone involved”, and “we should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

This is another indication of the prime minister’s personal weakness.

One of his ministers has been found to be a bully, but he’s not about to bring in measures to ensure that nobody else does the same.

Instead, it seems he wants to water down the process to ensure that it can’t make a similar finding against any of his other ministers, even if they deserve it.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Tory MPs face suspension – for ONE DAY – after trying to pervert the course of justice. Why aren’t they in jail?

One law for them: five Tory MPs are being disciplined by a Parliamentary watchdog after they tried to influence the trial of a colleague. That is a crime. Why aren’t they in jail?

We know the reason but I’ll get to it shortly.

The Commons Standards Committee has found that five Conservative MPs breached Parliament’s code of conduct by trying to influence legal proceedings against a colleague:

Theresa Villiers, Natalie Elphicke, Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway and Bob Stewart wrote letters regarding ex-MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted of sex offences.

The letters on Commons notepaper were addressed to senior judges.

Three of the MPs could be suspended from Parliament for one day.

Ms Villiers, Mrs Elphicke and Sir Roger face suspension, while Mr Holloway and Col Stewart have been told to apologise by the Commons Standards Committee.

Attempting to influence legal proceedings is a crime. These MPs should be facing criminal trial and imprisonment, not suspension from Parliament for a single day.

The way they are being treated is an insult to British justice.

Ah, but the police force that would handle any complaint is the Metropolitan Police, which is run by Cressida Dick. There’s no way any Tory MP will face justice on her watch!

In any case, police are discouraged from prosecuting any member of Parliament at all, under any circumstances. Charlie Elphicke was an exception in which – as I understand it – it was impossible not to take action.

He was the exception that proves the rule that they really are above the law.

Source: Five Tory MPs found to have breached code of conduct – BBC News

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook