• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Sir Philip Rutnam's Resignation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Liverpool
The fact that the bloke who's resigned will be earing at least twice what PP does as Home Secretary, should tell you he has a lot more to lose by taking this unprecedented move.

Remember he will have also turned down a nice wedge and index linked pension to "keep schtum".

She must have really p*ss*d him off?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
Having met both of the protagonists concerned, I know who I believe, and it’s not the Home Secretary!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,369
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
The fact that the bloke who's resigned will be earing at least twice what PP does as Home Secretary, should tell you he has a lot more to lose by taking this unprecedented move.

Indeed. Patel has an abysmal track record in government and appears - by most accounts - to be a nasty piece of work. It's no surprise Boris Johnson wanted her in the cabinet, she fits right in with the rest of them.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Liverpool
Indeed. Patel has an abysmal track record in government and appears - by most accounts - to be a nasty piece of work. It's no surprise Boris Johnson wanted her in the cabinet, she fits right in with the rest of them.

I also fear what Matt Hancock said about her WRT the public is also true unfortunately.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,114
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
The fact that the bloke who's resigned will be earing at least twice what PP does as Home Secretary, should tell you he has a lot more to lose by taking this unprecedented move.

Just to keep the facts straight, Philip Rutnam as a Permanent Secretary will get about £170K Priti Patel as a Secretary of State will get about £72K plus her MP's salary of £79K. So not a lot in it.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Liverpool
Just to keep the facts straight, Philip Rutnam as a Permanent Secretary will get about £170K Priti Patel as a Secretary of State will get about £72K plus her MP's salary of £79K. So not a lot in it.

Just checked, his pay was in the range £180-185K PA. Still not the sort of career you'd jeopardise on a whim, particularly after 33 years.

It's a pity he cant sue her personally, to save taxpayers a few bob. The rate Priti Patel's mate Johnson is going he'll have us bankrupt with family allowance payments.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,651
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Nobody has mentioned Philip Rutnam's record as Permanent Secretary at DfT, before he went to the Home Office.
He was the official who vetoed new trains for Northern (with a poor business case), but was overruled by the SoS at the time, Patrick McLoughlin, in order to get rid of the Pacers.
He also became responsible for Network Rail's finances when it was re-designated as a public body.
Prior to the DfT he was a senior official in the Treasury, and seen as a rising star in the George Osborne era.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,078
If the Minister is prepared to confirm their instruction in writing, it is. Unless the instruction requires the Civil Servant to cause the Government to break the law. In which case they can't comply - knowingly breaking the law gets you in court and somebody else telling you to is no excuse. Ministers can't (on major issues) change the law - they have to ask Parliament to do that.
Well, if the government were to come up against the Supreme Court again, a modern-day Lady Bracknell might consider it worse than careless! Unfortunately, though, we have a government led by someone who has proved time and again he couldn't care less, and we are going down the Trump route where a narcissistic egomaniac can say and do anything they like with impunity, surrounded by yes men (and women) and the feeding of titbits of fake news to the useful idiots who lap this stuff up. Then you convince the useful idiots every four or five years to put a cross in the box on the ballot paper against your name.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
Nobody has mentioned Philip Rutnam's record as Permanent Secretary at DfT, before he went to the Home Office.
He was the official who vetoed new trains for Northern (with a poor business case), but was overruled by the SoS at the time, Patrick McLoughlin, in order to get rid of the Pacers.
He also became responsible for Network Rail's finances when it was re-designated as a public body.
Prior to the DfT he was a senior official in the Treasury, and seen as a rising star in the George Osborne era.

Point of order - he didn’t veto the northern new trains order. He simply explained to the SoS that under the rules for assessing the provision of new rolling stock, there was no case to do so, and thus it would break the rules on public expenditure. Therefore if the SoS wanted to see new trains, he would have to issue a specific directive, which is what happened.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Liverpool
Point of order - he didn’t veto the northern new trains order. He simply explained to the SoS that under the rules for assessing the provision of new rolling stock, there was no case to do so, and thus it would break the rules on public expenditure. Therefore if the SoS wanted to see new trains, he would have to issue a specific directive, which is what happened.

McLoughlin used to be my MP. What a complete waste of space he was too. I think he'd been an MP about 20 years before he made his "maiden" speech? He must have been somebody's golden boy too to get what was the "West Derbyshire" constituency.
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,268
I'm glad you used the word accused.Nothing whatsoever proved, although some have her hung drawn and quartered. I prefer to see the outcome of due process before forming a guilty/not guilty opinion. By asking if that is acceptable, which it is not, you seem to have decided your opinion.
Not for a moment do I think that guy woke up Saturday morning and just made his little announcement. It surely was something that had been going on in his mind for a while. We have to ask if all internal grievance/disciplinary procedures had been rigorously followed.
Well, well, well.... Further allegations about past behaviour by Patel are now public domain. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that she is a thoroughly unpleasant individual.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51705069

Priti Patel staff member received £25k payout over bullying allegations
A former aide to Priti Patel received a £25,000 payout from the government after claiming she was bullied by the then employment minister.

Legal correspondence seen by the BBC alleges the woman took an overdose of prescription medicine following the alleged incident in 2015.

The DWP did not admit liability and the case did not come before a tribunal.

Ms Patel is facing allegations - which she denies - that she mistreated staff in her new role as home secretary.

Sir Philip Rutnam, the Home Office's most senior official, resigned on Saturday alleging Ms Patel's conduct towards staff included "swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands".

He said he now intended to take legal action against the Home Office on the basis of constructive dismissal, alleging that he had been forced out of his job.

'Unprovoked aggression'
Legal correspondence seen by the BBC show a junior employee at the DWP brought a formal complaint of bullying and harassment against the department, including Ms Patel, after being dismissed from her role in October 2015.

The staff member's grievance letter alleges she had previously attempted to kill herself after reporting similar allegations of workplace bullying concerning another individual in 2014, before Ms Patel was a minister.

The staff member also alleges she was told the decision to dismiss her a year later was not made on performance grounds but because Ms Patel did not "like [her] face", according to comments attributed to her line manager and a colleague.

On that day in October 2015, Ms Patel had shouted at the woman in her private office and told her to "get lost" and "get out of her face", the correspondence alleges.

Ms Patel is described as having acted "without warning" and with an "unprovoked level of aggression", in the woman's formal grievance complaint.

Shortly after, the staff member allegedly took an overdose of prescription medication in the office and lay with her head on the desk for some time.

She was then said to have become unresponsive and her partner was called by a colleague to collect her as she was unable to walk unaided.

The woman then took a further overdose at home in what is described as an attempt to kill herself and was rushed to hospital where she spent the night in resuscitation, according to the documents.

A settlement was reached in 2017 for £25,000 after the member of staff threatened to bring a legal claim of bullying, harassment and discrimination on the grounds of race and disability against the department, including Ms Patel who is directly named.

When asked last week about a complaint against Ms Patel during her time at the DWP, a source close to her said she was "unaware of any complaint being made".

Prime Minister Boris Johnson backed Priti Patel following Sir Philip's allegations, saying she was "a fantastic home secretary".

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove told MPs Ms Patel "absolutely rejects these allegations".

But he said the prime minister had asked the Cabinet Office to carry out an investigation into whether she had breached the ministerial code and "to establish the facts".

'Independent inquiry'
Labour MP Hilary Benn asked Mr Gove if any complaints had been made about Ms Patel's conduct at the DWP, or in her former role as international development secretary.

Mr Gove said: "The inquiry that is proceeding will look at all complaints that may have been made, I cannot say more than that."

A spokesperson for the government said "All ministers are subject to the ministerial code. We do not comment on individual personnel matters."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, speaking before the latest allegations, called on Ms Patel to be sacked if Sir Philip's allegations were true.

He backed calls by the the FDA union, which represents senior civil servants, for an "independent" inquiry into Ms Patel's behaviour.

Asked by Labour's Yvette Cooper how many complaints had been made against Ms Patel, Mr Gove said it would be "improper" to comment on an "individual personnel case".
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
If you were accused of bullying staff at work, do you think you be let to keep your position while under investigation, or would you be suspended? I see no reason why PP should keep her position after such accusations have been made, if they transpire to be false she can be reinstated. However if she remains she can exert a lot of pressure for any inquiries to find that she behaved well.

I think it very much depends on the pecking order here.

whether he likes it or not, priti patel is now in charge of the civil service.
we all get bosses from time to time that we have disagreements with in working practice,in strategy and so on.Most of the time you just have to suck it up,no matter how idiotic his/her new ideas are.

in the case of mr rutnam, it would seem that an impasse has been reached.
he's perfectly entitled to resign over "political differences".
as part of the civil service, he is paid to implement the ideas, not to make them.

accusations like bullying should be referred to an inspectorate to see if there is a case to answer.
That is sometimes a very grey area, when dealing with teams of people there are always personality clashes, and some can be more abrupt than others.It does not necessarily constitute bullying to have a forthright personality.

if mrs patel wins ,however, he shouldn't be asking for a reference!
 

arbeia

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
139
Location
South Shields
I think it very much depends on the pecking order here.

whether he likes it or not, priti patel is now in charge of the civil service.
we all get bosses from time to time that we have disagreements with in working practice,in strategy and so on.Most of the time you just have to suck it up,no matter how idiotic his/her new ideas are.

in the case of mr rutnam, it would seem that an impasse has been reached.
he's perfectly entitled to resign over "political differences".
as part of the civil service, he is paid to implement the ideas, not to make them.

accusations like bullying should be referred to an inspectorate to see if there is a case to answer.
That is sometimes a very grey area, when dealing with teams of people there are always personality clashes, and some can be more abrupt than others.It does not necessarily constitute bullying to have a forthright personality.

if mrs patel wins ,however, he shouldn't be asking for a reference!
Well said.
 

arbeia

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
139
Location
South Shields
If you were accused of bullying staff at work, do you think you be let to keep your position while under investigation, or would you be suspended? I see no reason why PP should keep her position after such accusations have been made, if they transpire to be false she can be reinstated. However if she remains she can exert a lot of pressure for any inquiries to find that she behaved well.
Funny you should say that. Twice in my career, I was accused (once of homophobia) and (once of bullying). Now I was guilty of neither, but I would have felt highly incensed if I had of been suspended pending enquiry. After all, the burden of guilt is on the accuser, not the defendant. I did not work for a company that would have suspended me on pay.
The homophobic accusation was dropped by the accuser 5 minutes before the hearing. The bullying accusation was unsubstantiated. Now as a Supervisor you are bound to have run-ins with people. Subsequently, I found out in both cases, 3rd parties were pulling the strings
So I do know what false accusations are, and how they can affect you. This is why, I prefer to give people the benefit of any doubt, till, or unless their guilt is proved or not proved.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
I think it very much depends on the pecking order here.

whether he likes it or not, priti patel is now in charge of the civil service.

Except she isn't.

Like all Ministers she is a 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician who isn't in in charge of the day to day management of the Civil Service.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
Except she isn't.

Like all Ministers she is a 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician who isn't in in charge of the day to day management of the Civil Service.

Indeed. The Cabinet Secretary is in charge of the Civil Service. He (and to date it has always been a ‘he’) is appointed by the PM.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,592
Location
Elginshire
Funny you should say that. Twice in my career, I was accused (once of homophobia) and (once of bullying). Now I was guilty of neither, but I would have felt highly incensed if I had of been suspended pending enquiry. After all, the burden of guilt is on the accuser, not the defendant. I did not work for a company that would have suspended me on pay.
The homophobic accusation was dropped by the accuser 5 minutes before the hearing. The bullying accusation was unsubstantiated. Now as a Supervisor you are bound to have run-ins with people. Subsequently, I found out in both cases, 3rd parties were pulling the strings
So I do know what false accusations are, and how they can affect you. This is why, I prefer to give people the benefit of any doubt, till, or unless their guilt is proved or not proved.
Using the same logic, do we stop remanding people in custody pending trial, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offence?
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
Using the same logic, do we stop remanding people in custody pending trial, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offence?
that's a bit silly.

the police don't have the power to remand in custody pending trial.
accusations of criminality are investigated by them,and after a set period, if warranted ,charges levied and brought before a magistrate.

the magistrate will listen to the argumants for/against and then make the decision whether it's dropped,fined or proceeds to crown court etc

remand in custody is generally reserved for the more violent/repetitive cases where risk of more offences being committed is higher.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,726
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I think it very much depends on the pecking order here.

whether he likes it or not, priti patel is now in charge of the civil service.
we all get bosses from time to time that we have disagreements with in working practice,in strategy and so on.Most of the time you just have to suck it up,no matter how idiotic his/her new ideas are.

Not in the civil service. @DerekC articulated very well upthread why this is not the case, and why it should never be. The civil service is there to work with ministers to formulate workable policies, not to blindly follow every mad idea they dream up.

I have to say as a side note, I find in deeply disturbing that more and more people seem both here in the UK and over in the US are pushing back on the kind of checks and measures put in place to prevent leaders becoming autocrats. Its certainly the case with Trump, he doesn't seem to want to take anyone's advice that isn't his own, and Johnson seems to be moving towards a similar model where the cabinet just becomes his personal echo chamber. That our leaders are seemingly moving in this direction is bad enough, but when some people seem to advocate this it becomes deeply concerning.
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
352
I have to say as a side note, I find in deeply disturbing that more and more people seem both here in the UK and over in the US are pushing back on the kind of checks and measures put in place to prevent leaders becoming autocrats.
It certainly feels like we're seeing the most significant challenge to liberal democracy that I've seen in my lifetime.
Fascism and communism were always practiced by 'other countries' and have slowly failed.
We now have 'strong man' populism coming to the fore with the likes of Putin, Trump and now Johnson (or more likely Cummings).
To my eyes, it's another version of a long line of autocratic leadership philosophies.
If you're 'in the party' it all looks rosy and you get rewarded for your loyalty (look to feudalism, monarchy, fascism, communism, etc.).
If you're 'outside the party', best keep your head down or someone will remove it.
I, for one, welcome our new master and overlord Cummings as the one true leader of this great nation.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,646
Having seen Priti Patel on (I think) Questiontime awhile back, I remember thinking that I was glad I didn't work with her. A very forceful personality, to say the least, who did not seem prepared to listen to other peoples' points of view.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
A good article in the evening standard tonight from Julian Glover, who worked with Rutnam at the DfT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ill-be-hurt-by-this-resignation-a4376056.html

Julian Glover in the Evening Standard said:
I was once a special adviser — the sort of job belonging to the shouty people in The Thick Of It, only not many special advisers actually work like that. Mostly you are trying to join up bits of government, chase people to get things done, worry about the money, and, if you are lucky, catch disasters before they happen. You have to do all this while working very closely with civil servants, and there’s only two ways that can go. Either you decide they are the enemy, getting in the way of all your bright ideas. Or they become allies in the mad, frustrating world of government.

On the first day I started at the Department for Transport, the most senior civil servant of all — the Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam — asked me into his office. I expected an awkward warning about not leaking things (I never did). Actually, the conversation went differently. “Julian,” he began, “something really terrible is about to happen and I have to tell you about it.” I gulped. How bad could this be?


It turned out that the department had messed up badly on a contract to run trains on the West Coast mainline from Euston. We had to confess, sort things out and keep the trains running. We could have diverted anger away from ministers by blaming Philip — but we needed a solution, not a scapegoat.


It was the start of four years of working closely with a clever, decent, committed man who had a job in government because he wanted to make Britain a better place. The fact that he has now resigned spectacularly after falling out with the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, says a lot more about her than him.


Philip isn’t flash: the tie he wore for his powerful resignation statement at the weekend was at the muted end of unexciting. When I went out for dinner with him early on in my job I eyed up the wine list. After some persuasion, he went for a small dry sherry.

But that’s exactly the sort of person we need as an official of state: someone clever who can get things done while politicians go out and make the case for their plans and get elected.

That’s the hard bit of government: making things happen. My friend Tim Leunig, now a Treasury official, was all over the papers yesterday because of an email he sent about farming. He’s one of the cleverest and nicest people I know, and that means he says what he thinks and challenges the system. We need people like that in government. Tim has actually spent much of the last two years trying to help farmers by replacing the mad subsidy system with something better for them and nature.

He doesn’t want to be famous. Like Philip, he’ll be mortified to make the news. Both of them know the way you make this country better isn’t by boasting about how radical you are to friendly journalists, and then blaming the system when it turns out nothing happens. Instead, you must use your brain, work hard and push for change. Sometimes things go wrong. They always will. It’s how you overcome this that counts
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,078
A good article in the evening standard tonight from Julian Glover, who worked with Rutnam at the DfT.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ill-be-hurt-by-this-resignation-a4376056.html
Today's 'Times' quotes an unnamed former minister who'd worked under Patel who said that she'd been loathed at the Overseas Development Dept and, according to the unnamed minister, was a 'thicko'. Must say, from all the times I've seen her on 'Question Time' etc I always thought her intellect matched that of Grayling and Truss.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Liverpool
Today's 'Times' quotes an unnamed former minister who'd worked under Patel who said that she'd been loathed at the Overseas Development Dept and, according to the unnamed minister, was a 'thicko'. Must say, from all the times I've seen her on 'Question Time' etc I always thought her intellect matched that of Grayling and Truss.

You do have to despair when you see some of the speeches made by Truss.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
Today's 'Times' quotes an unnamed former minister who'd worked under Patel who said that she'd been loathed at the Overseas Development Dept and, according to the unnamed minister, was a 'thicko'. Must say, from all the times I've seen her on 'Question Time' etc I always thought her intellect matched that of Grayling and Truss.

She was pretty switched on when I met her, thought she was very sharp. Patel that is, not Truss.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,726
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
She was pretty switched on when I met her, thought she was very sharp. Patel that is, not Truss.

Being, or at least appearing to be switched on does not excuse her for the alleged behaviour, in fact it makes it worse. As I said earlier in the thread, there have long been rumours on the kind of people she wants around her, and those kind of people are not necessarily the kind of people you need or want at the top of the decision making process.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,175
Being, or at least appearing to be switched on does not excuse her for the alleged behaviour, in fact it makes it worse. As I said earlier in the thread, there have long been rumours on the kind of people she wants around her, and those kind of people are not necessarily the kind of people you need or want at the top of the decision making process.

I was responding to the suggestion that she was of low intellect, which I don’t think is correct. Her behaviour is of course a different matter.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,760
More allegations of bullying have come out overnight, this time during Patel's time at the DfID (the one she had to quit because of unauthorized meetings with foreign powers). Seems the complaints were deliberately put on the record after investigations were stopped by her resignation so that when, as expected, she would return to a ministerial position the previous issues wouldn't be forgotten.

Naturally No 10 are saying it's all a conspiracy against a minister trying to do their job, yet no actual rebuttal of the allegations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top