Jobs for their Labour Mates

Corruption, cronyism, and the Sue Gray Scandal

It’s not technically a criminal offence to write or tweet about Sue Gray’s manoeuvres in No. 10. But it probably isn’t very wise…

—Tim Chapman, 2024

Sue Gray, current Downing Street Chief of Staff, former Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, the woman previously in charge of ‘propriety and ethics’ whose report toppled Boris Johnson for looking at a slice of cake, and, quite possibly, the third most powerful person in the entire country, was, according to Wikipedia, ‘born 1957 or 1958’, making her ‘age 66-67’. Wikipedia claims that she was ‘born in North London’ to two Irish immigrants, but next to this is a crucial ‘[citation needed]’. It is frankly bizarre that we can know for certain the date and place of birth of random eighteenth-century peasants, but not of a major public figure born when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister (or was he?). Why? Is she hiding something? Even if she is not, it certainly adds to the widespread allegations that she is some sort of spook.

Sue Gray, it is often remarked, has had a ‘strikingly unorthodox’ career path. That is an understatement. At a time when, for better or for worse, the Civil Service was still dominated by Oxford and Cambridge graduates, Gray — who never attended university, never mind Oxford or Cambridge — seems to have enjoyed an inexplicably rapid rise, especially from the late ’90s onwards. Certainly, she seems to have been very much trusted by Jeremy Heywood and Gus O’Donnell to deal with their dirty work in her ‘propriety and ethics’ role. So was her rise something to do with her renowned ability to make inconvenient matters go away — or indeed, to explode?

It is already well-known that, at the height of The Troubles, she took a ‘career break’ from the Civil Service to run a pub (with her husband Bill Conlon, an Irish country music singer) in the border town of Newry, one of the most dangerous areas in Northern Ireland at the time. Understandably, many have speculated that she was involved in some way with British intelligence. The Belfast Telegraph also reported claims that the IRA stopped her car one night, but left her, saying ‘that’s Sue Gray from The Cove [the pub she ran], let her go on…’. It has also been noted that she is very insistent about the need to leave no paper trail, advising Ministers on how to evade Freedom of Information requests — albeit not always successfully, at least in the case of Michael Gove — and on how to irretrievably delete data.

What is less well-known is that her interest — perhaps even obsession — with Northern Ireland continued well after her ‘career break’, to the extent that she seems to have repeatedly sought roles that would have been considered demotions by most normal people, just so she could work on Northern Irish matters. In 2017, Sue Gray was called ‘the woman who runs the country’; someone whose judgement could topple Cabinet Ministers, like Andrew Mitchell and Damien Green. Yet in 2018, she chose to transfer to the Northern Irish Civil Service, becoming Permanent Secretary at the Department of Finance in the Northern Ireland Executive. This role, while important, especially given the then-recent Renewal Heat Incentive (‘Cash for Ash’) scandal, for most people is hardly glamorous. Certainly, it is very unlikely to compare to her previous role in excitement, power, and prestige.

In 2020, Gray failed to become head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and returned to Whitehall to become Second Permanent Secretary. The BBC asked whether she would have taken the job in Whitehall, which seems more prestigious, if she got the job in Northern Ireland: ‘“No,” she replied without hesitation, adding: “I have really loved my time here.”’ As Will Lloyd notes, this interview was itself highly ‘unorthodox’: ‘something unheard of for a senior civil servant — or for that matter, any grade of civil servant — before or since… She was giving a pointedly political interview, bristling with on-the-record innuendos and stinging criticisms, to a major public broadcaster.’

In her new role in Whitehall, she soon toppled the British Prime Minister himself, and then — highly improperly — joined Keir Starmer’s team almost immediately after doing so, adding further sheen to the bizarre bureaucratic-mindedness of the modern Labour Party. In this respect, it perhaps helps that her surname is ‘Gray’.

Let us now return to speculation. I would guess that the reason she was turned down as head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was not her being ‘too much of a challenger’, as she claimed in an interview. Given the extent of her seniority and experience, it is very likely that she was, on paper, the best candidate for the job. And why wouldn’t she be? Normal people in Gray’s position probably wouldn’t be applying for this job in the first place. My view is that she was turned down because of concerns about her neutrality in such a sensitive role, given her close connections, family and otherwise, to Ireland, both in the Republic and the North.

Perhaps this speculation is baseless. But further allegations of strange behaviour from Gray pertaining to Northern Ireland are offered by Boris Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries. Dorries writes:

Gray always denied that she had a secret agenda to topple the Prime Minister (Johnson) but the circumstantial evidence to the contrary is now overwhelming.

…

[Sue Gray] gave the firm impression, in fact, that she thought it was all a fuss about nothing.

However, on their second meeting she said suddenly: “Once this is all over, I hope you will make me Permanent Secretary in the Northern Ireland office, Prime Minister.”

Unclear what was happening, an amazed Boris thought he was being offered a fudge — and pretended he had not heard.

It was only later he discovered that Gray had been turned down for the job — blocked, possibly, by Simon Case, which one can assume is where her own particular renowned dislike of Case began. After this meeting things turned nasty and her report eventually declared that she had heard about events that really should not have taken place.

…

What is clear is that, at some stage, Sue Gray began talks with the Labour Party about a job with the kind of power she evidently craved. She had been blocked for the job she wanted. Did she suddenly see the possibility of a deal with Labour — and if so, when?

…

I do wonder, how long will it be until we see Baroness Gray as Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland office?

Your mileage with Nadine Dorries — an understandably divisive and obviously partisan figure — may vary. But these claims, even if we may doubt some of the specifics (especially her allegations of a Goveite plot), seem to be part of a wider pattern. Once again, Sue Gray has been described as behaving strangely regarding Northern Ireland. And, once again, she has — somewhat mysteriously — been rejected (or in this case, ‘blocked’) from a role that, at least outwardly, she seems to be more than qualified for. Why?

Dan Hodges offers yet more allegations against Gray. The most serious include attempts to control the flow of information to Ministers — including on national security matters — to such an extent that it, to some, represented a serious (and dangerous) subversion of proper procedure. But another, more minor anecdote is striking:

…in a mundane meeting Labour strategists held to discuss the design of the party’s campaign literature. “Sue began complaining it had too many Union Jacks on it”, one source recalled, “and everyone started looking at each other saying ‘but that’s an important part of our branding’. She genuinely couldn’t understand. She thought it was ‘divisive’. That was when the alarm bells started going off. Until then, we’d been told she was an impressive operator.”

It is unusual, to say the least, to claim that Union Jacks are ‘divisive’ in a British General Election campaign — unless, of course, you have one eye (or both) on Ireland (‘butcher’s apron, yeah’) or are a legitimate far-leftist — or indeed both. It is remarkable that such a person was previously appointed to a role that put her in charge of ‘the Union’.

Her son, Liam Conlon, gifted the safe seat of Beckenham and Penge in 2024 — and who has reportedly bragged about his connections through his mother, which were presumably the reason for this ‘gift’ — is the Chair of Labour Irish, a seemingly pro-unification pressure group within the Labour Party. The Spectator’s Steerpike notes that very soon after his election, Conlon was appointed as a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department for Transport. This is a coveted promotion that no newly-elected MP will normally get for at least eighteen months: ‘Perhaps he knows someone at the top?’. For his General Election campaign, Conlon also received a £10,000 donation — his biggest individual donation by far — from Lord Alli, one of the figures at the centre of the unfolding cronyism scandal in which Labour donors have been given roles in Government and/or access to Downing Street.

Matters have not improved after the General Election. Very soon after Starmer’s victory, it was reported that a ‘row’ had broken out between Gray and the Treasury. Normal enough — if it wasn’t for the object that was causing the dispute: Gray was demanding £300m be spent on Casement Park, a Gaelic games stadium in Belfast named after an Irish nationalist paedophile, even attempting to bypass Cabinet Ministers in an attempt to force through the project, which seems a very strange use of the abundant political capital that is afforded to her because of her closeness to the Prime Minister. (The existence of this ‘row’ was later denied, somewhat unconvincingly, by Keir Starmer.)

‘What’s her problem?’

A briefing war on all fronts has since erupted between Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s political guru, and Sue Gray, who has been accused of attempting to sideline him and his (presumably more politically reliable) allies by moving McSweeney’s desk as far away as possible in order to restrict access to the Prime Minister and of filling up as many roles as possible with her own allies. Gray, who has always been fiercely protective of the clique she has cultivated around her, which is disproportionately made up of women, has seemingly put out hostile briefings against McSweeney claiming that she, fervent feminist, was in fact fighting for the sisterhood against ‘the blokes’.

All fairly standard post-election stuff, if it wasn’t for the fact that Gray’s somewhat mysterious aura — as well as her undeniable power — has also helped give rise to what will perhaps become more and more common in the coming months: blaming Sue Gray — perhaps accurately, or perhaps not, but certainly plausibly — for anything unpopular. For instance, Gray has already been blamed by anonymous sources within the Labour Party for the leaked plans to restrict smoking further in public places. And just yesterday, complaints were made of Gray allegedly intervening to try and have her friend and former colleague Daniel Gieve appointed as Starmer’s Principal Private Secretary, one of the most important roles in Government — someone who many in Labour are wary of due to his close links to certain Tories, especially on the pro-EU side.

It is often claimed that, because Dominic Cummings ‘became the story’ despite being a mere advisor, he Had To Go. People are already claiming that Sue Gray ‘runs the country’ — quite the blow to Starmer, who, at least outwardly, seems to be ‘focusing more on the décor’ than governing. Will Sir Keir listen to the (as always) sage wisdom of the British press, our esteemed fourth estate?

---

Gray’s antics, and the backlash within certain factions of the Labour Party they have sparked, are not the only controversial personnel decisions that have been made by Keir Starmer. Following the election, the Labour Party have made a string of appointments that have been accompanied by a stench of cronyism and corruption, which we need not outline here.

Perhaps some of those involved will have known that their actions were wrong, but simply do not care. But for others, there is probably a genuine lack of comprehension: the upper echelons of the British centre-left are so incestuous, yet simultaneously so convinced that they are always morally in the right — corruption, in their mind, is for ‘Tories’ — that they do not even realise that they are doing anything wrong. The regime thugs at ‘LedByDonkeys’ aren’t going after them, after all — they’re too busy with Liz Truss — so they must be doing something right, they would say.

Think, for instance, of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to go on Good Morning Britain at the height of the riots and be interviewed by her husband, Ed Balls. This was an entirely avoidable mistake: it’s not like she actually would have been given a harsh interview even if it wasn’t her husband in the studio. It is genuinely astonishing that not one person from either side realised that this was, to use their own parlance, ‘not a good look’. Good Morning Britain will have guest presenters to deal with situations like this; that they chose not to use them speaks volumes.

Some commentators, most notably Henry Newman, have attempted to hoist the government on their own ‘ethics’ petard, attacking them for their blatant cronyism. While Newman has done some very useful work, this is unlikely to be especially effective: accusations of ‘hypocrisy’, while sometimes morally energising to those already on side, often bore people rather than winning them over. It’s ‘negative’ politics of the least interesting sort. And, more fundamentally, it’s a rather lame criticism: an accusation of ‘hypocrisy’ also, at least implicitly, accepts the logical and moral framework of the Left and their understanding of how to properly govern.

Rhetoric should be along the lines of ‘Labour Jobs for Labour Mates’, and no more: the cosiness, cronyism, corruption, and complacency of the British centre-left. No demands for fresh ‘ethics’ inquiries or the like — let alone institutional changes — should be made, however tempting in the moment. It would be funny, but it isn’t worth it. We should never under any circumstances stray into seemingly legitimising the absurd — yet increasingly powerful — system of ‘ethics’ that has been allowed by foolish politicians to grow up over the last two decades or so, shackling British democracy. However, we should add, nor should the Tories be confident that the improperly ‘political’ appointments of Labour will (eventually) allow them to do the same: similar criticisms were made of New Labour, yet the Tories did not get a free pass. That is something which will be have to be argued separately when the time comes. In short, if the Right is not careful with their rhetoric, and particularly with their promises, they will come to regret it when — or if — they return to government.