PM Theresa May Sacks Her Joint Chiefs of Staff

It is not easy to find out what a ‘Chief of Staff’ does. You might think that the word ‘Chief’ means ‘boss’, and you might think that ‘Staff’ means ’employees’, but those definitions seem to be very wide of the mark. It is all very vague and depends upon what the PM wants the Chiefs of Staff to do. But it seems pretty clear that the Chiefs of Staff tell ’employees’ (being everyone in May’s office) what to think.

As far as I can gather, the two CoS’s wrote the Tory manifesto. It is hard to believe that two relatively unknown people were given that task by May. So who are they? Here’s a link:

Here are two extracts:

Fiona Hill

She was seen as one of the Prime Minister’s closest confidantes having spent four years working for Mrs May in the Home Office.

A former journalist who previously worked for Sky News and The Scotsman, she has a reputation for having unswerving loyalty to Mrs May.

She resigned as the then Home Secretary’s special adviser in 2014 after a bitter dispute with then-education secretary Michael Gove over newspaper briefings relating to extremism in schools.

She was credited with encouraging Mrs May’s commitment to tackling modern slavery.

She returned to government when Mrs May replaced David Cameron as Prime Minister in the aftermath of the EU referendum.

Nick Timothy

Instantly recognisable because of his full beard, Mr Timothy is originally from Birmingham.  

He is the son of a steelworker and attended a grammar school and has advocated that the Conservatives should adopt a policy of “Erdington modernisation”, named after the working-class of Birmingham, with a focus on governing in the interests of “ordinary, working people”.


His views on social mobility are believed to have had a big impact on Mrs May’s own approach to the issue.

He also advised Mrs May when she was at the Home Office and was appointed her joint chief of staff in July 2016 when Mrs May became Prime Minister.

He joined the Tories at the age of 17 and he is thought of as fiercely anti-establishment – as a special adviser to Mrs May while she was in the Home Office he clashed with the “Notting Hill set” around David Cameron and George Osborne.

Mr Timothy backed Leave in last year’s EU referendum – unlike his boss – and was credited with crafting Mrs May’s Lancaster House speech setting out her priorities for Brexit.

And here is a pic of the two:

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill

PM May can appoint whoever she wants to, but the ‘credentials’ of those two ‘ARISTOCRATS’ hardly fill one with admiration. But what is more alarming is that she believed that those two people who ‘helped’ her when she was at the Home Office were suitable to ‘help’ her as PM. I suppose we could credit them with the ‘Investigatory Powers Act’, which made the police responsible for looking for ‘hate speech’ on the internet’.

I just have a bad feeling about the whole business. Why did we not know who her advisers were years ago? Surely, such a function should be subject to at least a little scrutiny? The whole thing suggests to me that Ms May is and always has been, insecure. Perhaps that insecurity is the reason for her authoritarianism. In Iraq, during Saddam Hussein’s reign, several opponents would have received the gift of a bullet in the back of the head by now – on the advice of Fiona and Nick. But there was just a little to applaud about her choice of advisers, which was that they were not ‘academics’, or ‘experts’. Sadly, I think that they somehow acquired the ‘God Complex Syndrome’ virus. It is a well-known ‘smoking related’ disease. Studies have shown that 10 Downing St cats may be carriers of GCSV, since they have been known to suffer from ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and the consequent ‘smoking related diseases’. These diseases have been found NOT TO BE non-communicable.

But more research is required.

It would be interesting to know what effect the revelation of Fiona and Nick’s insertion into the Tory manifesto of penalties to be imposed upon pensioners had. The penalties of which I speak are:

  1. Means-tested winter fuel payments.
  2. Payment for ‘social care’.

1 is not important to me personally, but 2 is. But saying that 1 is not important to me does not mean that I was not annoyed by it, and I shall explain my reason.

Both 1 and 2 revolve around the idea ‘that some people can afford to pay but others cannot’. In effect, that means that those who can afford to pay must subsidise those who cannot. Imagine this situation. There are 2000 elderly people, all suffering sufficiently badly to need to ‘go into a home’. Let’s say that the cost of ‘going into a home’ is £500 per week. Let’s say that 1000 of those people are sufficiently well off, in terms of the value of their home, to pay the £500 per week, but the other 1000 have no significant assets. The ‘well off’ group have to pay, but the skint group do not. Thus, the wealth of the ‘well off’ group is transferred to the skint group.

Was there an alternative? Of course there was! But Fiona and Nick were too ill with GCSV (God Complex Syndrome Virus) to work it out. The answer is simple. Very old people, who cannot manage, and whose families cannot manage (because of Alzheimer, for example), are offered accommodation and care at a basic level. Higher levels have to be paid for. Of course, I cannot describe what a ‘basic level’ is. I just do not know, but there must surely be ‘experts’ in universities who can say precisely, based upon population studies, what is required.

Oh? There are not such ‘experts’? They are all studying ‘tobacco related diseases’ and do not have time?

FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!! Defund ASH ET AL, and the FCTC, and IPCC, and put that money into ‘social care’. For the time being, we can fail to understand what the phrase ‘social care’ means. We are INTENDED not to understand. The phrase is a mask for ‘old age infirmity’ – a ‘non-communicable disease’, and probably ‘smoking related’.

I do not understand politicians at all. They seem to be suckers. If I was Secretary of State for Health, I would not base my decisions upon the opinions of people with an agenda. I would, at least, seek the opinions of ‘academics’ and ‘experts’ with no personal axe to grind, such as ‘academics’ close to retirement or recently retired.

But there is also a HUGE nigger in the woodpile, which is the socialist bent of the education establishment. I do not want to talk about it tonight, but it seems to me that the OBJECTIVE of the UN should be a standard of living which is common throughout the world. That standard of living will differ from place to place. EG, people who live in warm places will not require central heating. But those people might have a greater need for refrigeration.

The USA and the UK must STOP playing around it the UN. The UN is an ENORMOUS cost. To demand our money, the UN must leave New York and Geneva, and relocate to Somalia. When they do,  I might believe them. And the IPCC must relocate its offices to Greenland or Antarctica.

I have some, but very little, sympathy for May. I think that she chose advisers whom she liked personally. Inadvertently, she was scuppered by their ignorance.



5 Responses to “PM Theresa May Sacks Her Joint Chiefs of Staff”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    May’s biggest requirement for her advisors seems to be how much they kissed her hind end.

    • smokingscot Says:

      Agreed. And that IMO is the mark of a lousy leader. Merit is the ONLY criterion that should uppermost with those at the top.

      Not at all sure what to make of her replacement

      because he’s a europhile (and resembles a streak of piss).

      So I suspect what we’ll see is a Brexit that’s identical to what Cameron negotiated in May of last year, except we’ll have no say in the future of the EU.

      And as Macron seems to have succeeded in starting his very own revolution in French politics (50% of his “MPs” will be just ordinary people with no background in politics), I feel it’s telling that Ms. May intends to go visit him later this week (no reference, but it was reported on France 24).

    • junican Says:

      Not sure about that, gary and SS. They probably served her well in the Home Office. But there is a world of difference between the Home Office and the Premiership. In the Home Office, they could get away with the ‘The Investigatory Powers Act’ – an abstruse thing – but not with hitting on pensioners and home-owners. What is very odd is that May did not see those implications immediately.
      She has had it, but she can still do a good job for the time being.

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    Oh? There are not such ‘experts’? They are all studying ‘tobacco related diseases’ and do not have time?

    FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!! Defund ASH ET AL, and the FCTC, and IPCC, and put that money into ‘social care’.

    Hang on! I thought that “passive-smoke” kills. First question: WHERE do all the elderly come from? According to tobacco control they can’t be alive.
    And the baby-boomer generation has to wait 7 years post 60 to get their state pension. The excuse is that we all live longer these days. That does include the baby-boomers born when tobacco smoking was booming also.

    We don’t need “experts”, we need common sense back!!! We’re wasting money on phony hysterical people and institutions, money that could e.g. prevent hypothermia deaths in Winter. For old people it is often the case of “eat-or-heat” for them.
    Not mentioning the dementia cases. They are stuck in EMI homes put in chairs staring at bamboo coloured walls all day alone. Often for years. At night time they are being put to bed. No-one cares. The relatives are given the spiel of therapy that doesn’t exist.

    Dementia in my family (the non-smoking side) is an issue which I would like to avoid. Smoking kills? REALLY? It looks more like I’ll have to sign myself into a Swiss place to avoid years of vegetating existence when that time comes – if it comes. I am a smoker.

    • junican Says:

      We have been saying the same thing for ages. Whatever the stats say about ‘death by tobacco’, the reality is that everyone, smoker or non-smoker, is living longer.

      I have a clear idea in my mind of what ‘basic social care’ might look like. If a pensioner cannot look after himself and needs to go into a home, then he relinquishes his pension to pay for his care. My wife suffers from MS. She does not receive her pension. Instead, she receives her ‘allowance’, which includes mobility. If she had to go into a home (which would mean that I personally can no longer cope), then her ‘allowance’ should be sufficient to pay for her care, otherwise, I should have been paid for looking after her. Of course, I do not begrudge my efforts. I would look after her regardless. My point is that, if her ‘allowance’ is supposed to be sufficient to pay for her needs, then it should be sufficient to pay for ‘social care’.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: