Anything Political

[PeverilPeril 3,286]

55 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Or the church.

 

8 hours ago, Cliff Ton said:

I've often thought that politics is the employment option for people who think "I'm not really very good at anything, so I guess I'll end up working in politics".

I am a little less cynical although it is obviously one of the many reason why some take to political ambition or to the cloth. The same is often said about teachers. Many must start  with good intentions of doing good but eventually have to tow the line. Obeying the whip when voting against some things that they totally oppose. Frustrated,  having to kowtow to keep the job so that they can continue to fight another day for what they believe in. The 'good uns' are rarely in the limelight. 

[DJ360 6,733]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

You seem to be concentrating on political theory and practice rather than the pragmatism and practicality of actually achieving objectives. Compare parliament with any large corporate structure and the similarities are obvious.

 

I still disagree.  Corporate structures are not, nor are they meant to be.. Democratic.  The whole purpose of the existence of Parliament is , above all.. the maintenance of Democracy. Do you see the mis-match?

It might take Parliament a little longer, but the decisions are at least democratic and more representative of the 'common will', than they would be if Thatcherites and Johnson et. al. have their way.  Call that 'political theory' if you like.. but it is that, or our Govt. and our Democracy get to play second fiddle to the forces of International Capitalism.. including Chinese and American International Capitalism .at least...  Is that what you want?

 

20 hours ago, Brew said:

The actual nuts and bolts have nothing to do with politics, they're handled by civil servants who, as you pointed out, serve through many changes yet manage to keep their own little empires going regardless.

 

I was with you until you mentioned 'little empires'.  That betrays a prejudice against Civil Servants. It shows that whatever they do will never be good enough for you and evidence will not sway your opinion. By coincidence, I watched 'Politics Live' or somesuch this morning, which featured not only some wet behind the ears back bench 'Tory Boy' trotting out utter drivel about immigration.. but also the execrable Isabel Oakshott, who is now reduced to blathering on GB News. A truly despicable woman, who spent her time this morning trying to blame the Civil Service for every policy failure of the current administration.

I

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Elected officials don't need to know everything nor does anyone expect them to, but they should at least have enough knowledge and experience to manage the job with some degree of efficiency.

 

There, we agree.   Which could bring us onto Raab and his tenure in the Foreign Office...

[Brew 5,423]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Corporate structures are not, nor are they meant to be.. Democratic

 

I'm not saying they are, and I'm a bit at a loss to make my point clearer.

I maintain the structure of parliament is much like a business.

 

Chairman, CEO, Board. Directors senior and middle management etc. Unions and shop stewards in opposition'

Swap the titles Leader, portfolio holders, council members etc. and it starts to look the same.  Which brings us back to the point, it matters not one bit which colour rosette they wear, if they don't understand how it all works they will never be effective.

Most CEO's have no idea how to work a lathe, but they know what it costs, where the raw materials come from and where the finished product ends. They understand the demand,  how to meet the need to satisfy it and all the processes involved.

 

You object to the phrase 'little empires', it's a common concept and not one I've dreamed up.

Successive governments have tried to change and reduce the civil service from it's 1930' architecture to a more manageable, modern, business like arrangement.

You may say it's just a cynical excuse to line the pockets of the rich, but it's not, it's clearing overstaffed departments and dead wood as evidenced by the numerous quangos we used to have that are no more.

We still have a staggering number of executive agencies, many meet maybe a few times a year but still have to be consulted in the making of decisions.

 

The Institute for Government has reports on the attempts and reforms governments have used trying to tame Whitehall.

 

On the Nottingham Council, take a peek at the number of posts and responsibilities. Councillor and Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing and Heritage (that's three), also has twelve other jobs and responsibilities plus working for BT. Hardly conducive.to efficiency, and leads one to believe the civil servants were simply left to get on with it. 

There is no record of her voting in the whole of last year

 

The maxim “A job on the council” was once a byword meaning a cushy job for life. It was  also used in a pejorative sense to say how poorly run  and inefficient councils and councillors are. Seems it's still relevant.

 

So the upshot of it all is, if they were run along sound business lines and practices, they wouldn't be threatened with a government takeover.

 

[radfordred 6,284]

Think Brews nailed it, I vote @Brew

[Cliff Ton 10,479]

6 hours ago, Brew said:

You may say it's just a cynical excuse to line the pockets of the rich, but it's not, it's clearing overstaffed departments and dead wood as evidenced by the numerous quangos we used to have that are no more.

 

To give him credit (and he understandably doesn't get very much) that was something Dominic Cummings was trying to do, but even he was eventually beaten by the establishment.

[MargieH 7,613]

@radfordred you really do make me chuckle…

 

 

[siddha 825]

it beats me why we seem to accept that a country can be well run for all its people using systems and protocols evolved centuries ago designed to keep a King/Queen and their hangers on as rich as possible.

[philmayfield 6,187]

Support appears to be growing for an elected head of state primarily amongst the younger age groups. The oldies seem to want to keep the Queen. The Royals certainly provide a degree of interest and amusement to our dull lives at a relatively small cost per capita. When you look at many other countries they either have a dictator they can’t get rid of or in so many cases a clown. Although, not head of state, we did put a clown into Downing St., that being the lesser of two evils at the last election. Only a revolution will overthrow the Monarchy and I can’t see that happening for some time. C’mon latter day Oliver Cromwell, start massing the troops.

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

To my mind it simply proves youth is wasted on the young...

[Brew 5,423]

11 hours ago, siddha said:

it beats me why we seem to accept that a country can be well run for all its people using systems and protocols evolved centuries ago designed to keep a King/Queen and their hangers on as rich as possible.

 

Can't make my mind up whether that's irony, satire, or sarcasm. 

[DJ360 6,733]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Chairman, CEO, Board. Directors senior and middle management etc. Unions and shop stewards in opposition'

 

No.. just No!!!  The whole point is that the PURPOSE of the organisation is entirely different, and it is inaccurate to see unions and shop stewards as always necessarily in opposition to employers.  Most of the tiime they co-oprerate and negotiate.  The purpose of Parliament is to ensure that all of the electorate are represented, even when the Government was not elected by them. Parliament exists to maintain and protect Democracy and protect us from Dictatorship.  As such, Parliament, and The Speaker, (who is at least notionally politicaly neutral) are there to prevent the elected Government from decoming a Dictatorship.  That is why Parliament slapped Johnson down when he was trying to be a dictator from a minority position.  That is also why we have (at least for now) an Independent Judiciary, which is not appointed by the Government. That's something else Johnson doesn't like, because they too slapped him down when he broke the law from a position of minority Government.

Parliament is not a business.  It is not even like a business. It serves as a seat, and protector, of Democracy. Look back at the history of Parliament and the way that it gradually stopped Monarchs from being Dictators.  The parallels you draw are superficial and contrived.

 

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Which brings us back to the point, it matters not one bit which colour rosette they wear, if they don't understand how it all works they will never be effective.

Which misses the point that for Johnson, it doesn't matter how it all works.  He has such a massive majoriity, given to him by a deluded electorate, that he can do pretty much as he likes.  He doesn't care about due process, scrutiny etc. He is the nearest thing we've had to a dictator since Churchill in WW2, except that despite his faults Churchill was essentially a patriot.  Johnson isn't.  He is a self serving opportunist, proven liar, etc.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

Successive governments have tried to change and reduce the civil service from it's 1930' architecture to a more manageable, modern, business like arrangement.

You may say it's just a cynical excuse to line the pockets of the rich, but it's not, it's clearing overstaffed departments and dead wood as evidenced by the numerous quangos we used to have that are no more.

 

Another fundamental difference of opinion. Just because Tories claimed that certain Govt. Depts. were 'overstaffed', 'dead wood' etc.. doesn't mean they were, and neither does their disappearance. For example, most 'public facing' departments, such as Revenue, Employment Services etc.. are chronically understaffed. Many of what you call 'Quangos', have been replaced by Private Sector 'equivalents', except that profit has taken precedence over service as the primary objective. And what's more, Tory Govts have rewritten the requirements to make them achieveable alongside a decent wedge of cash, but by neglecting the real needs for which the services were originally set up.  We've been here many tiimes before.  Qualified, effective and decently paid staff, are replaced by unqualified, poorly trained staff, delivering half baked shadows of what was delivered before.  But it's cheaper.. and therefore it must be better.

 

Let me put it this way.  You can reduce public spending by 90% and still make a profit for your friends, if you reduce the service requirement to the square root of sod all. You know this Jim.

You are also neglecting the fact that reducing public spending alone, is probably less than half of the story.  Public spending goes on jobs, salaries, services, and ultimately  increased economic activity and tax take.  It is indisputable.

21 hours ago, Brew said:

The maxim “A job on the council” was once a byword meaning a cushy job for life. It was  also used in a pejorative sense to say how poorly run  and inefficient councils and councillors are. Seems it's still relevant.

 

'Council Jobs' tended to be moderately paid, but secure. You omit to say that so were jobs at Players, Boots, and many other Private Sector companies.  Mine was never 'Cushy'.

When you think about it, this argument is hilariously paradoxical.  Many of us recall the times when our towns and cities were better kept.  Our Parks, Gardens and Public Spaces were far better maintained, as were our roads and streets., and our Libraries, Leisure Facilities etc.  Thanks to Thatcherite thinking, much of that has gone, yet Council Taxes continue to rise as Central Govt starves Local Govt. of cash, while loading it with more and more responsibilities. Again. Undeniable.

 

It is a complete fabrication to assert that, as if it were a universal fact, councils and councillors are all, by definition, inefficient.  If that were the case, this lot:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-and-local-government

...would be taking over councils right left and centre. But they aren't. So make of that what you will.

'Council Bashing', is almost a national sport.  As is 'Parliament/Politician' bashing.  I'm not here to defend the genuinely incompetent or corrupt, but those who like to bash our institutions, might want to reflect on what you get when you succeed.  Just look at Putin's Russia, or the appalling Legal system in the USA, where justice is not a universal issue, but a political issue.

Be very careful what you wish for.

[DJ360 6,733]

12 hours ago, philmayfield said:

that being the lesser of two evils at the last election.

 

Only if you see the leader as equivalent to the totality of the party, its principles and its policies.

 

Corbyn was ostracised, misrepresented and frankly lied about from Day 1, by our wholeheartedly right wing press, though I'll admit he's not his own best representative.

Johnson, much like Trump, is a complete bastard. Apologies for the intemperate language but one word stands in for thousands where that horror is concerned.

 

Sadly, the gutter press. i.e. most of the press, sided with a lying clown, over a sincere social inadequate.

Result? Worst of all worlds.  An incompetent, lying, thieving Govt, which has handled Covid badly and also utterly failed to deliver the glorious Brexit which they promised.  They are well on the way to completely ruining what was left of Britain after Thatcher.

[DJ360 6,733]

14 hours ago, Cliff Ton said:

To give him credit (and he understandably doesn't get very much) that was something Dominic Cummings was trying to do, but even he was eventually beaten by the establishment.

 

But was he?  Really?  There's no doubt he hated the Civil Service, but not because of what it did.  He hated it because it stood in he way of his own lunatic plans.  I'm in complete agreement with Jim on this one.  The only one who thinks Cummings is a genius, is Cummings.

[Oztalgian 3,326]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The Speaker, (who is at least notionally politicaly neutral)

Lucky you! We are still stuck at Federal and State levels with Speakers that come from the government and to be quite honest their bias is often shown.

Despite blatant pork-barreling and obvious rorts the LNP Federal government steadfastly refuses to have an ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption). All the politicians in our state government voted to eviscerate a similar body in this state when questions about their expense claims came to the fore.

In this country politicians are now viewed among the lowest of the low when it comes to respect, integrity and morals.

[Brew 5,423]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

he whole point is that the PURPOSE of the organisation is entirely different

 

Really Col? The purpose is irrelevant! Nowhere has anyone mentioned it, the purpose, whatever it may be, needs facilities and infrastructure to be achievable. How they do it is the whole point of the hypotheses that running it along business lines makes good sense.

I give up, you have totally misconstrued the point of he discussion. Your hatred of the Tories and overwhelming socialism is clouding your view.

 

“The parallels you draw are superficial and contrived”.

 

Again you have totally missed the point’

Of course they are, I’m trying to make a point by drawing an analogy to demonstrates  how large organisations work. Whether they are governments or corporations it matters not. The ideology in this context is irrelevant.

 

Parliament as you say has evolved.  Since the 1500’s business has also evolved and continues to do so. Unlike parliament it is continually seeking to be more efficient at what they do. The profit they achieve is merely a measure of success or failure.  It’s a pity the mandarins block any attempt at modernisation if has an effect on themselves regardless of how effective it may be.

 

The classic case was Blair’s attempt modifying the NHS IT structure. It took nine years, billions of pounds and failed, not because it wasn’t a good idea. The Lancet blamed civil servants for not talking to the right people  and totally losing control.

I can’t think of any properly run enterprise that would have allowed the debacle.

 

It’s obvious that by dint of previous experience civil servants and councillors are a sore point with you and you seem to be taking this as  a personal slight, it's not.

 

 “You omit to say that so were jobs at Players, Boots, and many other Private Sector companies”

 

An irrelevant statement and I probably didn't mention them because there is not, as far as I know, a pejorative maxim that uses any of those company names. The popular saying came about from a time when councils and council workers were, by reputation, notorious for being lazy and inefficient. Players and Boots were not. 

 

“It is a complete fabrication to assert that, as if it were a universal fact, councils and councillors are all, by definition, inefficient.”

 

Who did that?

 

“Council Bashing', is almost a national sport.  As is 'Parliament/Politician' bashing”

 

 Hardly surprising when the people see what sort of cock ups Nottingham City Council  have made and then have the gall to stand there and claim to be a “good council”.

-------------

I'm ignoring the second diatribe Col, I have a mental picture of you frothing at the mouth. I agree with some of it but not all.

[Brew 5,423]

20 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:

n this country politicians are now viewed among the lowest of the low when it comes to respect and morals.

 

It seems that regardless of the good intentions when starting out MP's, especially the leaders become corrupted by power. Churchill, Thatcher, Blair etc. all in my opinion went bad after being in power too long. Maybe the majority are trying their best but when the s''' hits the fan everyone gets a bit..

[Oztalgian 3,326]

35 minutes ago, Brew said:

when the s''' hits the fan everyone gets a bit..

Unfortunately many of our politicians are made of Teflon. It does not matter how much excrement the rapidly revolving object throws none of it seems to stick as it is always someone else's fault.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:25 AM, Brew said:

I give up, you have totally misconstrued the point of he discussion. Your hatred of the Tories and overwhelming socialism is clouding your view.

 

I've just reviewed this part of the thread Jim.  It started with assertions about the competence of elected members, and how much they should know about the technicalities of the policy delivery which they are meant to control. But, crucially, we seem to have wandered into discussing something different.  I'd venture that we have found ourselves at crossed purposes because the discussion has wandered from elected members and government (Local or Central), to discussion of elected members and Parliament.  The thing is that Government exists within Parliament, but Parliament also exists outside of Government, and is charged with keeping Government democratic etc.  If I've caused that confusion I apologise.

 

I have no problem with things being run efficiently, but I do not accept that the cause of inefficiency is automatically to be laid at the door of either Local Govt. Officers, or Civil Servants. Nor do I agree that Local or National Govt. should be run as businesses.  I think we've seen quite enough of that in the last two years and it has not been pretty. I don't think we need look much further than Johnson and many of his ministers to see how poor leadership results in chaos, irrespective of the Civil Service structures they are supposed to lead.

 

I can only repeat that I do not condone incompetence at any level, but that I just do not accept that 'council bashing' etc., has any demonstrable validity as a universal idea. Individual councils, councillors and members vary. There are good bad and indifferent examples of all. My own local (Labour) council scores very highly on Govt. audits and is seen as well run.  It seems that Nottm is less so, and I do agree that I have seen many examples of lousy decision making which have seriously damaged both the city and its image.

 

Coming back to Parliament for a moment.  The main reason I get so angry, is that it seems many people are incapable of distinguishing between Government and Parliament.  Whilst clearly intimately entwined, they are not the same thing and IMHO, Parliament is the more important in the long term. People need to defend Parliament, the institution, in order to defend our democracy. Sadly, the whole Brexit debacle has led to people wrongly blaming Parliament for failings which are really the fault of Govt.

 

Of course, parliamentary procedure and custom must look very outdated to many, but there are reasons for why it is so, and many of them are designed to regulate the process of Government.  Only a day or so back I saw the Deputy Speaker admonishing some SNP members for tactics during a 'division', which smacked of 'filibustering'. Good on her.

 

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

have no problem with things being run efficiently, but I do not accept that the cause of inefficiency is automatically to be laid at the door of either Local Govt. Officers, or Civil Servants. Nor do I agree that Local or National Govt. should be run as businesses.

 

At least we're now singing the same song, 

Blame;  if we cannot lame the blame at the door of local officials and supporting civil servants, who do we blame? With millions going awry there is a fault, I'm talking about Nottingham now, and to my mind it's self-evident that there has not only been gross negligence, it has been going for a number of years.

Surely the fault can only be with one or the other—unless both are complicit, which I doubt.

 

I never said councils should run as a business I said like, or along more business like lines by people who know and understand how large organisations operate. Councils, like corporations, are complex and without some degree of experience or competence those in charge can hardly be efficient. Anyone with experience of running a business would probably make a better fist of it, note I say probably.

 

In the 1998 Local Government Act the aim was to ensure local authorities  undertake  activities only if they can do so competitively. This was amended in the 1999 act to include the terms efficiency and effectiveness.

Someone somewhere was thinking along the  lines  that not all councils are competent or as effective as they should be.

The Act came up for review in 2011, but I don't know if anything changed.

 

Something to consider:

 

City council seem to have a lot of managers managing managers.

The executive is a team of 34, and 7,500 employees.The city has debts over a billion £ and faces action if they don't get it down, this equates to £3,500, per person.

 

The County Council Executive is only 15 (4 part-time consultants)  and 15,000+ employees.

County debt equates to £723 per person.

(Derby £1722)

(figures from ITV News)

 

 

[siddha 825]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:51 PM, Brew said:

 

Can't make my mind up whether that's irony, satire, or sarcasm. 

Brew ,

I thought it was a serious point. There are times when I am sarcastic, ironic and attempting satire. Over something as obviously inappropriate as our system of governance I am straight down the line.

It is arcane and based on preserving a now several hundred year old monarchic meritocracy , it is not a democratic system formulated to achieve the best outcomes for the majority of the population. We should not be surprised when things do not happen as well as they might!

[Brew 5,423]

Our particular form of representative democracy is not among the best I  agree (it ranks 16th, France 24th – US 25th).  However, I disagree that it's sole purpose is to maintain the monarchy. Quite why republicans get so upset about the throne is mystifying, usually it's down to money, something aired here before, and on close examination the cost is minute.

 

Among the top ten highest rated democracies in the world, 6 have a King or Queen as head of state.

 

The closet to a pure democratic system of governance, Switzerland (did not have full emancipation for women until 1991), works by an almost unending system of referendums, they have on average 10 a year and the results are binding.

 

There are about  8 million Swiss, less than 3 million  voted on an  affordable housing and  abolishing government subsidies for renovating luxury flats bill.

 

They rejected it - the best outcome for the majority of the population?

 

[philmayfield 6,187]

Now that most people are ‘on line’ might it not be a good idea to put all parliamentary bills forward for the electorate to vote on? That would be true democracy. It would, of course, result in the reinstatement of capital punishment for certain offences.

[Brew 5,423]

The idea is fine, but the fly in the ointment is the government deciding what you're voting on.

Digital voting in the UK has been tried five times. There are no plans to do it again so far.

 

How long would the arguments and inquiries go on for in a tight result like Brexit?

 

The US has digital voting, which is a quite compelling argument against it.

 

And how long before the system was hijacked?

[philmayfield 6,187]

This is the problem. We do need an elected body to run the system. It could be used, however, to gauge public opinion prior to a Parliamentary vote. The problem is there are so many people out there who are indifferent to the workings of our democracy or just plain stupid.

[Brew 5,423]

 

4 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

The problem is there are so many people out there who are indifferent to the workings of our democracy or just plain stupid.

 

I mentioned the Swiss earlier, two or three of the Cantons plus expatriates have online voting, the figures are not all that different from the normal system.