Weapons-grade hypocrisy from Labour on cronyism

Let me be honest - the argument that the people Labour have been trying to bring in as advisors and civil servants do not have anything to offer the country has not been proven.

However, the charge that Labour have been cutting corners on due process for some of their appointments, and failing to follow exactly the sort of rule which they screamed blue murder when they thought the previous Conservative government was bending, has been proven.

And the case that when you compare what Labour said in opposition about cronyism with how they have behaved in their first fifty days in government, the contrast displays weapons-grade hypocrisy, is cast-iron solid.

Robert Colvile wrote this in The Times:

He adds on X, formerly Twitter:

"A quick recap: as @HenryNewman has been arguing, Labour's appointments are qualitatively different from most of those under the Tories. Labour people appointed without competition not to advisory roles but newly created, senior positions deep within the Civil Service machine."

"Labour say the Tories used this exception process lots. But you can read the list here! It's overwhelmingly short-term/specialist/managerial/apolitical. So apolitical it includes Rachel Reeves's husband, a senior civil servant (inc under Truss in No 10)

Recruitment Exceptions above PB2 - Civil Service Commission (independent.gov.uk)

"I personally believe ministers should have larger teams around them that they appoint themselves - more Spads, more Pads. But there are procedures for that, which very obviously haven't been followed in these cases."

And as he concludes, if your only defence when challenged on these appointments is 

"Yeah, but the Tories did it" 

when you've spent the last fourteen years excoriating the Conservatives' ethical standards, then "you're probably not in a good place."