I mean, you don't have to agree - but this is the point of disagreement. Not sure there's much new to say. Except possibly that 'unverifiable' is a bit...well. Stephen is saying the civil servants he worked for thought he showed leadership - means he spoke to them. bsky.app/profile/step...

On immediate reflection I don't want to put words in Stephen's mouth - I don't know how he arrived at that view, only that it will be sourced.

Indeed! Michael is making sweeping claims and his position basically seems to be that the only acceptable truth is one that goes “yes, you’re right, I shouldn’t consider the departments he ran or what civil servants said about him”.

No what I’m saying is that if somebody wants to convince me that somebody is a good leader in a public role that there should be some public evidence of that beyond some 2nd hand accounts that some of his colleagues say he is ok at his job