Forum Topic

Inquiry "found that Priti Patel broke the Ministerial Code"

A draft report concluded in the summer that Home Secretary Priti Patel had broken rules on ministers' behaviour, sources familiar with the contents say.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55007122I am pleased about this but will not celebrate until I hear the full outcome.  Somehow I believe that Boris Johnson will take the political solution:  ask her to apologize but keep her post.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1986d71 Comments

I think we're back to my first comment 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 1982d

Interesting that the Daily Mail is now saying Patel will get the sack (and be shunted into the party chairmanship) in the new year reshuffle:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8976281/Boris-Johnson-demote-Priti-Patel-Home-Secretary-predicted-Tory-chairman.html

Richard Carter ● 1982d

John Hawkes:  Dead right. The real issue is no longer Patel- it is the fact that the PM is protecting her. It's a repetition of his treatment of Cummings who was allowed to get away with breaking the lockdown. We're dealing with a PM who is detached from ethical standards.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1983d

The humourist Tom Lehrer said - "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize".Are there others like me in which a similar sentiment is induced when Boris Johnson is deemed to be the ultimate arbiter of standards in public office ?Or private life for that matter !

John Hawkes ● 1983d

"45% of the turn out I believe."Silence implies consent.

David Ainsworth ● 1983d

"It's what the majority of the voters want. The majority cannot be fooled."45% of the turn out I believe.Not helped by Labour's policy switch to a second referendum leaving the Conservatives as the only Brexit Party!

Ed Robinson ● 1983d

It's what the majority of the voters want. The majority cannot be fooled. My only regret is that I do not have enough years left to see the wonders just over the horizon, coming at speed in our direction.

David Ainsworth ● 1983d

No surprise given the moral bankruptcy of the PM - he even lied to the Queen let along his Letter Box racist remarks and his lies over Brexit and an Oven-Ready Deal. May they all rot. The Nasty Party has truly shown its true colours.

Clifford Cowell ● 1983d

I agree Richard, it is all a mess and desperately unacceptable.I also find it very "unsettling" if not disturbing that the PM asked for Patel report to be palatable....As you say, I wonder why?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1983d

Johnson has claimed that Patel was responding to a lack of support from her new department and was “unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed” because she received no feedback about her behaviour. However, this is a straight lie: Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned from his post as Perm Sec at the Home office has stated that he tried on a number of occasions to tell her that her behaviour was causing problems, only to be ignored.Now it's being reported that Sir Alex Allan tried repeatedly to interview Putnam during the course of his investigation, but his attempts were stymied. I wonder why?

Richard Carter ● 1984d

On LBC with Matt Frei dozens of callers were making the point that whether the bully was aware of his/her behaviour the effect it had would be enough to convince most employment tribunals. She and her sponsor Johnson May get away with this for now but sooner or later this will erupt again.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1984d

Of course, and sorry if what I wrote implied otherwise (and that wasn't meant to be a non-apology apology!).

Richard Carter ● 1984d

"she was unaware of her bullying".She must have forgotten the earlier events then.

David Ainsworth ● 1984d

Exactly Michael.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1984d

So she's "apologised" and admitted she was unaware of her bullying. So that raises questions about her competence and experience to be appointed as a minister?

Michael Ixer ● 1984d

 Reply"So if Patel had said what you have called me tell me Sean is that bullying?"
I am sorry if you feel I was bullying you. I was completely unaware of it 😉

Sean Hodges ● 1984d

I am not convinced that the problem lies on the functioning (or not) of the Home Office. I think PP IS the problem.The Cabinet Office enquiry found evidence that PP had breached the ministerial code following allegations of bullying in the three government departments in which she had served.  Quite a track record, don't you think?- She became an MP in 2010, - Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (July 2014-May 2015), - Minister of State for Employment (May 2015 - July 2016), - Secretary of State for International Development (July 2016 - November 2017), - in the back benches from 2017 to 20019, - Home Secretary (July 2019 - ).I am not too sure if her problem is lack of experience or immaturity (a chip - or two - on her shoulder?). I see her as entering every department as a bull in a china shop and, without knowing much about their functioning, demanding everything is done her way - whether she is right or not.I find her vexatious and not a very nice person.  Therefore, the allegations of bullying and shouting do not surprise me at all.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1984d

I don’t disagree, Richard.  I was merely suggesting that she appears to have ridden this one out

Craig Fordham ● 1984d

Just to add to that, the fact that a serial offender is seemingly so completely  unaware of her abusive behaviour shows a quite staggering lack of self awareness that would surely exclude her from consideration of a significant job pretty much anywhere.  Except in Johnson's administration, of course.

Richard Carter ● 1984d

"If there’s a next time she’ll have to go."But this is the third Department in which she's been shown to be a bully: how many more next times will there have to be before she's fired ?  And she admits to behaviour that was not up to the mark but claims she was unaware of it! If I should ever be given a parking ticket or accused of shoplifting, I wonder how far I'd get if I claimed I was 'unaware' of breaking the law? Or perhaps I should just say it was all right because I was only doing it in a limited and specific way...

Richard Carter ● 1984d

Allegedly the third time already. Reports from 2015 and 2017.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51731753Misfortune or carelessness?

David Ainsworth ● 1984d

Looks like Priti Patel will survive for now.  Whether she ‘bullied’ staff or not appears to be a matter of perception.  It is, however, 2020 not the 1980s.  Swearing and shouting at staff is not acceptable any more and in an employment tribunal would likely be seen as evidence of bullying.  Aside from being deeply unpleasant, losing your rag is a really poor management technique that has now been proven time and time again to be ineffective in delivering productive and effective employees.  Patel is going to have to change her management style - and quickly - or she’ll simply find herself back here again in short order.  If there’s a next time she’ll have to go

Craig Fordham ● 1984d

"Would not comment one way or other on last 10 years as discussion is about behaviour not achievements or lack of by this or any previous govt."Quote from CONSERVATIVE Minister James Cleverly on QT"Job of ministers to make sure departments function as their optimum outputs"So either the department was not up to scratch after 10 years of Conservative government or it was!Many of us that take an objective view will hold the belief that little was actually done in the 10 years in way of reform. In short lots of nasty rhetoric but little actual effective change.So clearly the Conservatives failed in their objectives before PP. No excuses as stated before for PP behaviour but is it possible that the department wasn't how it was sold after 10 years of Conservative government - which may have led to some tensions???Lets not forget lots of the current ministers including the PM served as ministers in previous Conservative governments.

Ed Robinson ● 1984d

Perhaps we may learn more when it comes to court or tribunal?

David Ainsworth ● 1984d

Would not comment one way or other on last 10 years as discussion is about behaviour not achievements or lack of by this or any previous govt.Mrs May clearly a woman but my growing a pair comment was aimed at the poor civil servants on substantial salaries who took offence at a bit of industrial language.Ondoarding of ministers may well not be  sufficiently robust but that is surely a matter for the civil service to address.

Andy Pike ● 1984d

I agree but the use of industrial language per se does not imply bullying. It may offend some sense of ethicat but cannot always be seen as bullying. Possible poor judgement if used in the wrong context.The worst bully I ever worked for and witnessed in action  came across as the nicest  man but would cut you dead In a full room in the nicest possible way.

Andy Pike ● 1984d

Andy - While I do not agree with Mrs T politics she broke glass ceilings and took on a largely male dominated workplace and believed in what she was doing.I think it was a mistake not to publish the report. My understanding is that after 10 years of Conservative government little has changed at the home office.PP was clearly wrong - as is any person in a superior position that behaves in such a way. My understand is that her behaviour has improved since the issue has been drawn to her attention  (could just be gossip as report was not published).This seems to indicate that the onboarding process and expectation of ministers behaviour is not sufficient. Again this is at the Conservative governments door being in power for 10 years.Theresa May was in the position for 6 years - long enough to grow a pair one would assume.So what is it Andy?Where the last 10 years achievements a lie?Is not Theresa May also a woman?Or is the process for onboarding ministers simply not fit for purpose (bearing in mind she was previously a minister) ?

Ed Robinson ● 1984d

Andy. I've had some tough bosses, mainly men but a few women. They've usually got their way by a commanding authority down to a respect earned from being competent. They've not usually resorted to shouting or swearing - unless for general effect, which is not the same as directing it at an individual. Some have been difficult to work with but have usually listened if one's got something sensible to say. I suspect Mrs T was like that? The few bullies I've worked with have normally failed by  failing to listen to people trying to explain the reality of what's happening rather than how they see it ...

Michael Ixer ● 1984d

Poor loves had a boss who was 'unpleasant'.One wonders how they would have survived working for Mrs T.I worked for some formidable women during my career and they were tough task masters and sometimes not nice but they got the job doneThink some of these Sir Humohries need to grow a pair.

Andy Pike ● 1984d

I think we need to step back and look at what has caused the issue.It's obvious that after 10 years of Conservative governments running the home office, all the issues promised were fixed years ago. It now runs so smooth that Preti must simply be bored and acting up. I would suggest that she be given new challenges to pretend to fix!Of course if the above is not correct it does make you wonder what they have been doing for 10 years??

Ed Robinson ● 1984d

I agree David, completely!But the hallmark of this government, as well as the Trump lot, it is always somebody else's fault!!! They will never, ever, make a mistake, let alone acknowledge one.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1984d

I agree Caroline, a very pathetic - if not totally inappropriate and unacceptable - so-called apology.  One that may have a few decibels but certainly devoid of the meaning of a wholehearted apology.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1984d

So if Patel had said what you have called me tell me Sean is that bullying?

Robert Wheeler ● 1984d

Her previous breaking of the Ministerial Code in 2017 produced this trick shot:-"In hindsight, I can see how my enthusiasm to engage in this way could be misread""Could be misread"! The error is yours, guys, not all my fault! But I'll take one for the team. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/priti-patel-apologises-for-israel-meetings

David Ainsworth ● 1984d

Then I am deeply and profoundly sorry that you are an idiot

Sean Hodges ● 1984d

Yes she apologised 'IF she had upset anyone'. Not 'BECAUSE she had upset anyone'. Not a real apology atall.

Caroline Whitehead ● 1984d

The vitriol on here is unbelievable.  Patel apologised which is what “sorry” means.

Robert Wheeler ● 1985d

Exactly... she’s a nasty piece of work.

Mary Baglietto ● 1985d

She hasn't apologised at all. She has employed her favourite form of words that includes the word sorry, but puts the blame on those who take offence or felt bullied

Sean Hodges ● 1985d

The independent inquiry said she broke the rules, she should be sacked, that’s my point.

Mary Baglietto ● 1985d

I don't think anyone is saying the civil service doesn't need to be reformed, but I doubt whether shouting and swearing at people is likely to assist on getting people on side to enact cultural change. I've seen several instances where a bullying attitude or the discouraging  of challenging managers' has meant near corporate disaster. Not ones I can talk about but looking at public ones, I'm told by people who worked near Fred the Shred his attitude could be considered bullying - that turned out well for RBS? It appears top managers at TSB ignored what their techies were saying about readiness - I'd say their systems upgrade was a good example of something to avoid?

Michael Ixer ● 1985d

No reading the posts that clearly is not the impression.  So what is your point?  Patel has apologised for any hurt caused hopefully she can now continue to deliver change within her department.

Robert Wheeler ● 1985d

No SH isn't saying that at all.  Read all of the thread, properly.🙄

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Work place bullying is a very serious matter and not to be taken lightly!! Is SH implying it’s ok because she’s a woman and big strong men should just put up with it.

Mary Baglietto ● 1985d

Exactly! Well said Robert.

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Blimey what a loads of nonsense.  The civil service are aware Ministers come and go and the civil service carry on regardless.  Patel has one of the toughest jobs and was elected to deliver change, so why shouldn’t a minister try and change her department.  If staff don’t deliver it is frustrating.  It clearly appears to be shocking to civil servants to deliver anything.  In my opinion it needs a real shake up as it appears currently to have too many white middle class males that are just keen in keeping the status quo.

Robert Wheeler ● 1985d

No Sean I am not.  There are guidelines set down by all HR departments on grievance procedures so were these followed or did Rutnam just resign and take his allegations of bullying straight to a tribunal and claim it was unfair dismissal?  I don't know, do you?

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Bullying is often done by people with power to those over whom they exercise power. It doesn't matter is one is smaller and female — if she has the power to end their career or make their lives miserable, and misuses that power she is a bully. Physical size is irrelevant. 

Or are you suggesting the civil servants should have used physical force to defend against her?

Sean Hodges ● 1985d

@Jonathan 13.51Both Sir Thingammy Whatsits who have walked are obviously looking for huge compo payouts to help soothe their hurty feelings. Boo hoo.😩

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Johnson is acting completely in character. He models himself (as much as he can) on Churchill. "“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.” Winston Churchill, speech to Harrow School, 1941." (Quoted by John Rentoul today)."except to convictions of honour and good sense". So, as he lacks these, Johnson never ever will give in.

David Ainsworth ● 1985d

SH  If you want to read what happened, ask Johnson. He's got the report but refuses to release it. Don't see this as a feminist thing, myself. Bullying is bullying, regardless of gender.  Are you defending bullying if it's done by a lady?

Alexander MacLeod ● 1985d

It's not been made official Ivonne.  You always have to exaggerate things.🙄

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

A very big touch of Trump here, Caroline.  I suppose we can say Trumpette has followed the lessons to the T.As expected, Patel issued the wettest of wet apology and she stays on, with the blessing of the PM.What a horrible dictatorship this government has become. And, of course, it is now official:  proper behaviour and politeness as well as ministerial codes no longer apply.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1985d

It seems more than odd to me that the Home secretary is said to be so lacking in  self awareness that she did not notice that she was bullying people, swearing, shouting etc. It is perhaps even more odd that the Prime Minister is able to commission an Inquiry and then declare that he does not believe the result without producing any supporting evidence. A touch of the Trump here I fear!

Caroline Whitehead ● 1985d

I think it goes way beyond just shouting and swearing.  Listen again to one of your hated Sir Thingy Whatsit's resignation statement:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51688261 His case is yet to be heard.  Out of court settlement the most likely outcome but he may insist on going through the court process in full.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1985d

The sad thing is whether you want to support the PM and Patel, or the report's findings it's, firstly, bringing democrastic government into disrepute and, secondly, excusing bullying in the workplace, even if not intentional. I have seen women ignored by arrogant men in the workplace, but I've also seen people of both sexes have their instructions ignored because what they've proposed is not viable or is even ridiculous. Unfortunately we don't know enough about the detailed of the case to judge this. I'd only comment that if one's being ignored stamping one's foot and shouting isn't a good way of getting people on side; putting forward a well thought out pursuasive argument works far better. One might have agreat idea but not everyone agrees or understands it.

Michael Ixer ● 1985d

How many of these men actually complained about Patel shouting and swearing?  I haven't read everything about this case so perhaps I missed it.  Did Patel have hissy fits at all of them on a daily basis or did she lose her temper once out of frustration because a project was bungled due to incompetence?  Blimey if these men get upset by a woman's raised voice or by a bit of swearing they would never survive in a normal workplace.

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Another 'Sir' bites the dust because his 'findings' cut no ice with the PM.  Never mind.  Dozens more in Whitehall just like him, you will hardly notice he's gone.

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

The main issue is, or should be, whether bullying in the workplace is acceptable or not.  Defending Ms Patel by changing the subject amounts to defending the practice.  Tory MPs have been busy on Twitter and elsewhere doing just this.  Bullying elsewhere in parliament (and it exists on both sides of the house, let's be clear) are highlighted and dealt with.  Bercow was denied his peerage in part because of multiple allegations of bullying.  Why is this case so different?There is also another issue - breaching the ministerial code.  She did it at DFID and was forced to resign.  She's done it again but is staying on, the first known case of a breach of the code that hasn't led to a resignation.Standards in public life are slipping.  Badly, in my view.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1985d

Guardian today:-"A row has broken out after Boris Johnson’s adviser on the ministerial code resigned in the wake of the prime minister standing by the under-fire home secretary, Priti Patel, despite a long-awaited official inquiry finding that she bullied civil servants.Sir Alex Allan’s findings concluded that Patel’s approach “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying” – noting instances of shouting and swearing – and that she had breached the ministerial code, although her actions may have been “unintentional”.But Johnson, who is the sole arbiter of the rules, set himself on a collision course with his adviser’s conclusion by deciding that the ministerial code had not been breached, prompting Allan’s resignation on Friday. Patel herself issued an apology, saying: “I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people. It has never been my intention to cause upset to anyone.”"

David Ainsworth ● 1985d

It strikes me that all the pompous public school prigs and multitude of overpaid and under-achieving 'Sirs' of which Whitehall is stuffed full to the brim, probably resent taking orders from a small Asian lady who was educated in a state school and worked her way up to Ministerial level.  What a diabolical shock for them!  Their cosy establishment set-up has already been rocked by Cummings and now it appears that Priti Patel has upset them too.  What a bunch of whining wimps.

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

In her public utterances Ms Patel has often struck me as imperious, arrogant and dogmatic. These characteristics are reinforced by a facial appearance which, perhaps through no fault of hers, comes through as stern and unyielding. I would also suggest that she is not terribly bright. If these qualities are evident in public, one can only imagine what her conduct is like behind closed departmental doors. To put such a person in charge of a department that is supposed to be humane in its dealings with people was unfortunate. My guess is that Johnson will  rap her across the knuckles now, then demote her early in 2021.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1985d

One might have to speculate that even if it's not bullying she then perhaps doesn't have a particularly good management style if her department has a poor atmosphere. Is that the type of person Johnson needs in his cabinet at the moment?  I can see if someone's under pressure they might have a brusque management style just to get things done but in my experience a good manager will normally apologise informally for that before it becomes an issue? But perhaps we need to wait and see what the report says. 

Michael Ixer ● 1985d

If the report is ever published a more accurate headline would possible be: "Inquiry "found that Priti Patel broke the Ministerial Code Again!"We shouldn't forget this one either: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-no-10-payout-sonia-khan-b1722364.html

Ed Robinson ● 1985d

I would agree with you Ed.Sky News and the Guardian report it along the same lines.  Have not had time to look into the FT, Independent or the Times but cannot read the FT or the Times as I do not subscribe to them.The Telegraph so far has nothing on this.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1985d

Michael & Ivonne, according to a source - most of "a source says.." is not leaks but just repeating the message the government wants to put out with no added value :)

Ed Robinson ● 1985d

"Sky News understands that some of those close to Ms Patel do not feel comfortable with her issuing an apology because they say her behaviour was unintentional and not deliberately intended to cause upset.There are also claims that Ms Patel was subject to inappropriate treatment herself by other members of staff."The inquiry was triggered by the departure of Sir (another one🙄)Philip Rutnam who did not get on with Patel.  He claimed she created fear amongst staff and took his allegations to a tribunal.  However it is interesting that no other similar complaints against her were recorded. Boris has apparently had the report for some months.  Shame on him!  It's not as if he's had anything more important to deal with, is it?

Sue Hammond ● 1985d

Unfortunately, the sort of journalism that reports on information leaks, as has become customary with this government, sadly.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1985d

Ed. It's not ideal but Johnson has a habit of sitting on unfavourable reports. People a probably leaking bits because they want some action? 

Michael Ixer ● 1985d

I just read the linked article. I see source addiction continues:  "But one source.."  "Another source who saw the report .."  "A different government source .."You think with all these sources she could dish up the actual draft report.I'm no fan of Priti Patel but is this really journalism?

Ed Robinson ● 1986d

I've heard a rumour Johnson may be looking at a cabinet reshuffle in January. Yes, I suspect if he has to do something now it will be an apology and perhaps followed by a  demotion in January.

Michael Ixer ● 1986d