Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Lxxx]

50 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Dr is a qualified title.

You can't select Minister as a title. It's an official address of Ashfords role, NOT a title. Bit like in the House of Commons in the UK you'll hear 'my right honourable friend the minister for incompetence' it's a way of addressing the individual in their official capacity, but not a formal title.

It was addressed to the Minister by someone who works for DHSC. No matter how you try to skin the thing, it was a letter from a departmental member of staff to the minister of said department, otherwise... why send it to him?

The letter could in theory form part of a future grievance procedure or any other as yet unforeseen course of action, being as it was effectively an inter-department form of correspondence. Even from a very basic HR point of view it needed to be kept on record and should have been insisted upon by sensible people within government. 

He f*cked up and got caught out. Keep going Moulton.....

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

by sensible people within government. 

You're at it...

[joebean]

1 hour ago, Apple said:

Bit harsh I feel. I think he has been forced well into that corner by others.

However, he is trying to fight this storm with at least one hand tied behind his back. Lost my respect.

Yes, maybe a little harsh. His political experience and ability is insufficient to have got him through. Started off doing a passable job but his naivety and ego got the better of him. This letter saga does not, however, say much that is positive about his integrity. He has HQ and Cabinet Office steering him into this creek as well. 

[Scotty]

3 hours ago, Banker said:

Just before you joined 😀

I joined early summer, about May 👍

[Andy Onchan]

It has all the tones of a junior back-office Sir Humphrey feck up. 

[Barlow]

7 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

It has all the tones of a junior back-office Sir Humphrey feck up. 

It's no fuck-up. That's being kind. We all make fuck-ups. You are offering an excuse. Well it won't wash.

There is a far more accurate and obvious way to describe this scenario.

[Andy Onchan]

11 minutes ago, Barlow said:

It's no fuck-up. That's being kind. We all make fuck-ups. You are offering an excuse. Well it won't wash.

There is a far more accurate and obvious way to describe this scenario.

I'm absolutely not making any excuses. There's been no one on here more critical than me over this debacle.

You missed the point. I'm of the opinion that he didn't do this off his own back, he's not that clever. The back-office bod who advised him to go down the letter route (Cabinet Office media office?) made the colossal feck up.

He's been led by the nose and is now paying for it. The GDPR excuse was a classic Sir Humphrey response/bullshit.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Andy Onchan

[NoTailT]

25 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm absolutely not making any excuses. There's been no one on here more critical than me over this debacle.

You missed the point. I'm of the opinion that he didn't do this off his own back, he's not that clever. The back-office bod who advised him to go down the letter route (Cabinet Office media office?) made the colossal feck up.

He's been led by the nose and is now paying for it. The GDPR excuse was a classic Sir Humphrey response/bullshit.

Honestly when i watched DA with Moulton in that panel show, you could almost feel the caution and insecurity without the press officers around him. Like he almost wanted to come clean, almost.

[ellanvannin2010]

37 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm absolutely not making any excuses. There's been no one on here more critical than me over this debacle.

You missed the point. I'm of the opinion that he didn't do this off his own back, he's not that clever. The back-office bod who advised him to go down the letter route (Cabinet Office media office?) made the colossal feck up.

He's been led by the nose and is now paying for it. The GDPR excuse was a classic Sir Humphrey response/bullshit.

It may well have been a private personal confidential letter, but once he chose to use it in his defence in public in a press conference then it became part of the public record and public property , albeit maintaining the authors  anonymity.

 

[Uhtred]

Let's be clear - the reading out of the letter (the origins of which I still consider to be highly suspect) has all the hallmarks of being a calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr. Rachel Glover. Whether or not it was proposed by some shadowy media guru, or other Cabinet Office figure - or indeed Quayle - Ashford could simply have said 'No way am I reading this, I choose not to behave in this dishonourable and underhand way'. And yet he went ahead. This tells us much about the man. He's prepared to do it; he cannot resist pressure from whoever (I'm sure he's a puppet of Quayle...he reeks of it) and likely he's a patsy for officials too. This, dear posters, is what the Manx political community delivers up as your Health Minister. But when you look at the top job, who is surprised?

Edited November 27, 2020 by Uhtred

[Barlow]

Thank you Uhtred. That eloquently summed up much of my thoughts.

 

  And to Andy Onchan,

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm absolutely not making any excuses. There's been no one on here more critical than me over this debacle.

You missed the point. I'm of the opinion that he didn't do this off his own back, he's not that clever. The back-office bod who advised him to go down the letter route (Cabinet Office media office?) made the colossal feck up.

He's been led by the nose and is now paying for it. The GDPR excuse was a classic Sir Humphrey response/bullshit.

..my apologies

 

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Barlow

[Itsmeee]

15 hours ago, manxman34 said:

I was not getting at 'come overs', and I apologize if I gave that impression.

Thank you. Manxman34. 
 

When I typed  that post, autocorrect changed it to ‘combover’ and I am absolutely in favour of any and all discrimination against that kind of abomination.

[Andy Onchan]

13 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Thank you Uhtred. That eloquently summed up much of my thoughts.

 

  And to Andy Onchan,

..my apologies

 

 

No apologies necessary... I probably should have made myself clearer. 

[Apple]

3 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Let's be clear - the reading out of the letter (the origins of which I still consider to be highly suspect) has all the hallmarks of being a calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr. Rachel Glover.

Slight tangent but the issue of being discredited struck a chord.

Dr Tindell the mental health psychologist who allegedly was subject to something not a million miles away was before the Employment Tribunal today. Does anyone know what the outcome is?

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Let's be clear - the reading out of the letter (the origins of which I still consider to be highly suspect) has all the hallmarks of being a calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr. Rachel Glover. Whether or not it was proposed by some shadowy media guru, or other Cabinet Office figure - or indeed Quayle - Ashford could simply have said 'No way am I reading this, I choose not to behave in this dishonourable and underhand way'. And yet he went ahead. This tells us much about the man. He's prepared to do it; he cannot resist pressure from whoever (I'm sure he's a puppet of Quayle...he reeks of it) and likely he's a patsy for officials too. This, dear posters, is what the Manx political community delivers up as your Health Minister. But when you look at the top job, who is surprised?

I think this is a very unfair and unwarranted slur on a man ( actually two men) who are having to make important decisions during these difficult times. Yes as H Q said on Thursday they won’t always get everything 100% right but they’ve not done so bad so far.

Re letter gate, rather than being a “calculated attempt to impugn/discredit Dr Rachel Glover” reading the letter was more to reassure the rest of her team in the light of events that their input was also appreciated, that they should not feel undervalued  and it was so much more than a one woman team. Clumsy perhaps but emotions seemed to be running high at that time, so perhaps understandable.I see no reason to believe that the letter was not genuine. And even though it was shredded (maybe somewhat unwisely I concede) there is a record available of what it contained.

This seems to be a classic example of build them up and them knock them down. From heroes to zeros in a matter of months for some. Let’s not forget the Government were being lauded so long ago ( rounds of applause outside Government building etc being mooted)

Its certainly my experience that the Government still enjoys  a lot more support in the wider community, than those  of the nay sayers and cynics contributing to this forum.