This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/21/the-guardian-view-on-damian-greens-sacking-taking-back-control-ineffectively
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Damian Green’s sacking: taking back control – ineffectively | The Guardian view on Damian Green’s sacking: taking back control – ineffectively |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Theresa May has been forced to sack Damian Green, her closest and most trusted ally, first secretary of state and deputy prime minister in all but name. She will be the weaker without him, but the fact that she was able to time his departure – delaying it until the end of term, as MPs packed up for Christmas – has given her at least the appearance of control. She has until the new year now to plan a reshuffle that, after the departure of the most unflinching pro-European in cabinet, will require an element of rebalancing. The key role Mr Green has played as prime ministerial aide and stand-in is clear from his membership of all but two of the 21 cabinet committees that shape government policy, including all those directly involved in strategy for exiting the EU. This is a job that requires the prime minister’s complete confidence; he will be hard for her to replace. | |
| Mrs May would probably describe the dismissal as orderly. It is all the more remarkable in the light of her record since her disastrous decision to call June’s unnecessary election. In just six months, she has lost her majority; her closest advisers, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill; her defence secretary, Michael Fallon; her secretary for international development, Priti Patel; and now Mr Green – a rate of attrition that would almost certainly have destroyed her predecessors. | Mrs May would probably describe the dismissal as orderly. It is all the more remarkable in the light of her record since her disastrous decision to call June’s unnecessary election. In just six months, she has lost her majority; her closest advisers, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill; her defence secretary, Michael Fallon; her secretary for international development, Priti Patel; and now Mr Green – a rate of attrition that would almost certainly have destroyed her predecessors. |
| In the climate of revulsion that has swept the country since the predatory conduct of Harvey Weinstein finally forced the public to confront harassment in all its forms, Mr Green was lucky not to have been suspended weeks ago. It was at the beginning of November that the journalist Kate Maltby, who is also the daughter of family friends, alleged that he had exploited a professional encounter, offering career advice “and in the same breath [making] it clear he was sexually interested”. The cabinet secretary’s report into his conduct said that contradictory accounts of private meetings made it impossible to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether he acted inappropriately, but found her account plausible. In his resignation letter Mr Green – while still insisting he did not recognise her account – has now apologised for making Ms Maltby feel uncomfortable. | |
| That just might have been enough to save his career six weeks ago. But since then, Ms Maltby has been the victim of a series of vicious personal attacks in newspapers sympathetic to Mr Green. This character assassination is completely unacceptable and a powerful deterrent to any young woman who wants to expose and challenge the behaviour of a powerful man. Mrs May should have recognised that and at the least suspended Mr Green at once. | That just might have been enough to save his career six weeks ago. But since then, Ms Maltby has been the victim of a series of vicious personal attacks in newspapers sympathetic to Mr Green. This character assassination is completely unacceptable and a powerful deterrent to any young woman who wants to expose and challenge the behaviour of a powerful man. Mrs May should have recognised that and at the least suspended Mr Green at once. |
| Paradoxically, Mr Green may have survived as long as he did for the reason that ultimately forced him to resign. Days after Ms Maltby’s account appeared, a retired police officer, Bob Quick, told the Sunday Times that in a search of Mr Green’s Commons office in 2008, made in the course of a leak inquiry, pornography had been found on the MP’s computer. Mr Green’s immediate response was to deny that he knew anything about it. He still insists he had never downloaded or watched pornography on the computer. But he now admits that his lawyers were told about it at the time, and had further contact on the subject in 2013. He lied. He breached a principle of ministerial conduct, set out in the official code. That is why he was sacked. | Paradoxically, Mr Green may have survived as long as he did for the reason that ultimately forced him to resign. Days after Ms Maltby’s account appeared, a retired police officer, Bob Quick, told the Sunday Times that in a search of Mr Green’s Commons office in 2008, made in the course of a leak inquiry, pornography had been found on the MP’s computer. Mr Green’s immediate response was to deny that he knew anything about it. He still insists he had never downloaded or watched pornography on the computer. But he now admits that his lawyers were told about it at the time, and had further contact on the subject in 2013. He lied. He breached a principle of ministerial conduct, set out in the official code. That is why he was sacked. |
| His friends believe he has been the victim of a long vendetta by the police that has its origins in the row that followed the search of his office. Mr Quick’s conduct – and that of a colleague who backed his allegations – has now been referred by his old bosses at the Metropolitan police to the information commissioner. Regardless of that, it was wrong of Mr Green to lie. All the same, sacking him for this reason has the air of convenience: in doing so, Mrs May has been able to duck more complicated questions about both the pornography allegations and Ms Maltby’s charge. | |
| It is evident in the letter she wrote to Mr Green on Wednesday night that Mrs May was genuinely torn between her commitment to promote women in public life, and thus give Ms Maltby’s allegations their due weight, and her loyalty to a friendship that goes back to university days. Her attempts to do both have been less than convincing, and as a result she has failed on both counts. She has been unable to protect her most loyal and reliable ally in cabinet, the politician who perhaps comes closest to sharing her priorities. But she has also failed to make an effective statement against sexual exploitation. In the end, her apparent success is a flimsy thing. She took back control, but in a way that will ultimately leave her weakened. | |