Anything Political

[DJ360 6,733]

19 hours ago, Brew said:

If different schemes were never tried society would stagnate. Some work, some don't and we adapt, adopt and move on.

 

Has it never occurred to you that what was scrapped, might actually turn out to be more effective than what followed... and that..  heaven forfend.. a return to a previous 'scheme' might actually be a better adaptation than 'moving on'?

You also seem to imply that policy changes etc.. are always motivated by high ideals and a genuine desire for improvement.  I'd say the jury is very much out on that one.

[DJ360 6,733]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

You're describing a situatation that simply can't be sustained. It may be benificial to the people involved but paying for someone to do nothing is a financial millstone. You recently had a problem with your boiler and one plumber fixed it, how would you feel if he brought 4 assistants who also wanted paying?

 

And you are assuming that many are standing about doing nothing. That is not the case. An employed person has a wage to spend and is not dependent upon benefits.

 

20 hours ago, Brew said:

I reported Chubs view that the golden era was post privatisation, you, or those you consulted claimed 1972 ish. some 20 odd years before the service was sold off making it much earlier in my view.

 

No.  I said from '72 through to 1994.  I also said that little other than the audit trail changed after Major's privatisation. It was a mystery to many as to why it was done at all, other than as a small part of. and maybe dress rehearsal for, the long term erosion of Local Govt power. Without reading his whol thing.. I'm unsure what he thought was so 'golden' about 1994-2000., although it was reported that a few top brass of privatised services awarded themselvesa cars and big salry hikes. I'm not accusing Chubb of that.. obviously...

[DJ360 6,733]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

Smoke and mirrors Col.  One of the benefits of privatisation rather than jobs for life nationalisation is the ability to hire in expertise for the length of the contract and then let them move on.

Like it or not people are assets, not for nothing are they called 'human resources'. We are a resource and hold our jobs by completing the task we are paid to do.  Again like it or not everything IS reduced to a business proposition.

"The only business of business is business". (Freidman).

You may say comapnies should have a sense of social responsibilty and some do, but only if it adds to the bottom line.

 

 

It isn't about companies having a sense of social responsibility.. in fact a lot of that harks back to the paternalistic approach of many 19thC companies, such as Lever Bros, Titus Salt et. al.. who all attached strings to their philanthropy...and more recently.. the likes of Pilkington in St Helens, who maintained a tight grip on their workforce via the illusion of welfare, whlst keeping wages low, and actively preventing other companies from competing for thir workforce.

 

It is about Govt. having a sense of social responsibility by designing contracts to actually achieve what is needed, rather than what they want, and then ensuring that contractors deliver.

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

 I can't recall you ever criticising Labour for spending billions and getting NOTHING in return:

 

Quote-

 

"An investigation by The Independent has found that the total cost of Labour's 10 most notorious IT failures is equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain's schools last year. Parliament's spending watchdog has described the projects as "fundamentally flawed" and blamed ministers for "stupendous incompetence" in managing them"...

 

I've never claimed Labour were perfect.. especially under Blair.  '10 most' etc.. may or may not add up to whatever and I'm not about to defend waste or incompetence. but this is very different to pushng money into your mates pockets.

[Brew 5,423]

45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

Has it never occurred to you that what was scrapped, might actually turn out to be more effective than what followed... and that..  heaven forfend.. a return to a previous 'scheme' might actually be a better adaptation than 'moving on'?

You also seem to imply that policy changes etc.. are always motivated by high ideals and a genuine desire for improvement.  I'd say the jury is very much out on that one.

You do me a disservice Col, of course it has occurred to me, not only that I have argued for it on many occasions in my career.

 Nevertheless new ways, new technology need to be tried and tested. Some will work some won’t but unless we try how will we know? Changes in the organisation can be as beneficial as change in technology.  I do not argue they can’t be disastrous, only that we need change if we are to progress. It all comes down to that old thing we call hindsight.

I did not mention the motivation for change but in the case of the CS it seemed to be to make improvements and in some minds it did just that.

[Brew 5,423]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I've never claimed Labour were perfect.. especially under Blair.  '10 most' etc.. may or may not add up to whatever and I'm not about to defend waste or incompetence. but this is very different to pushng money into your mates pockets.

 

Deleted, it was turning into an attack.........

[DJ360 6,733]

26 minutes ago, Brew said:

I did not mention the motivation for change but in the case of the CS it seemed to be to make improvements and in some minds it did just that.

 

The perennial problem with the Careers Service.. or maybe more accurately.. Career Guidance...as a concept....is that there are so many perceptions of what it is... and what it is for.  This leads different people to seek different approaches... most of which are wrong.  I won't go into the detail here.

[DJ360 6,733]

21 minutes ago, Brew said:

 

Deleted, it was turning into an attack.........

 

I can take it!! 

[Brew 5,423]

No Col, I've had a bad day, been 'done over' by the son of a friend and I'm still seething over it... not fair to take it out on you..

[DJ360 6,733]

Sorry to hear that.  I hope you can resolve it.

[DJ360 6,733]

Entirely plausible and unsurprising   ....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book

[Brew 5,423]

Not sure but it does raise a lot of 'what about' and 'what if' questions. I'm also minded of the Hitler Diaries nonsense of a a few years ago which in turn brings up the aphorism 'If your going to tell a lie, make it a big one'...

[Brew 5,423]

Freedom of speech is a particular hobby horse of mine, (I know, I have more than one) and find it somewhat disturbing that you can now attract a £200 fixed penalty for anything you post on a social media site, (Facebook, Nottstalgia for instance) that the police judge causes "angst in the community".

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Brew said:

Not sure but it does raise a lot of 'what about' and 'what if' questions. I'm also minded of the Hitler Diaries nonsense of a a few years ago which in turn brings up the aphorism 'If your going to tell a lie, make it a big one'...

 

Yebbut..  Trump clearly 'sucked up' to Putin.  He is also clearly pathologically susceptible to flattery and he seems to identify with dictatorship.  Whichever way you cut it, Putin and his lot are WAAAAAYYY smarter than Trump and his bunch.

[DJ360 6,733]

40 minutes ago, Brew said:

Freedom of speech is a particular hobby horse of mine, (I know, I have more than one) and find it somewhat disturbing that you can now attract a £200 fixed penalty for anything you post on a social media site, (Facebook, Nottstalgia for instance) that the police judge causes "angst in the community".

 

I entirely understand, and from experience I know that you would not deliberately post offensive, prejudiced or racist material.

 

However.. what you are describing is basically a form of censorship.  The problem in my view is not so much the censorship.. but who has been entrusted with it.  Frankly.. this is something beyond the competence of much of the Police Force, apart from being automatically subject to Political control.

 

The thing is that most 'liberal minded ' people are instinctively opposed to 'censorship'.  But this of course presents us with an immediate problem.  We don't want censorship of some things which might fall under the general heading of 'morality'.  (Lady Chatterly.. or some of the views of Oscar Wilde being famous examples), but equally we do not want people to be free to promote racism, hatred, far right or far left views, or simply crazy stuff such as Q Anon qand other loony conspiracy theories.

 

In the UK, the reality is that most of this stuff is covered by existing law.  The question seems to be how to make established law work within the framework of Social Media.

[Brew 5,423]

I quite agree, my concern is that a fixed penalty notice is not tested in a court but is down the opinion of one individual.

As you quite rightly point out there are existing laws but I've never heard of causing "angst in the community. How do you define it? how many people constitute 'the community'.

 

How do we make existing law work in social media? quite easily apparently, seems to me they're even doing it for laws that don't exist!

 

The FPN can of course be challenged but few have the courage or the finances to meet the draconian fines for having the temerity to do so.

[DJ360 6,733]

I fell foul of F'book's own rather Draconian procedures a couple of weeks back.  I replied to some stupid person's way OTT comment in what I suppose is best decribed as a rather 'intemperate' manner.  The thing is when some algorithm or other picked up on a single word and challenged me.. I misunderstood the options and ended up with a 'warning'.  Apparently if I do it again I will be banned from F'book forever. 

 

Yep...

[Brew 5,423]

Another instance of my fear, an algorithm that tells you what you can or can't say. A non sentient piece of code that determines what we can or can't see or hear and no way to challenge the decision, no system of arbitration.

 

Like the police who seem to be pushing the envelope with ambiguous charges to see how far they can go, electronic surveillance is a slowly chipping away at every one of us.

[DJ360 6,733]

Government can find..or borrow.. billions of pounds in order to pay for anti Covid Measures. And I am still not forgetting the string of coincidences which result in companies owned by Tories or their close associates landing contracts in that regard.  You'd almost think there weren't any other companies out there..

 

But when it comes to the issue of cladding on buildings.. Our esteemed Govt are disgustingly slow to act.  People are in danger of losing their homes because cladding which they did not fit and were not aware of, needs replacing.  The costs are high and of course those who knowingly fitted unsafe cladding are all busy trying to lay off the blame to anybody they can, and the costs, to the hapless home/flat owners.

 

Govt. has produced no answers whatever yet.  They have thrown a bit of money at the problem.. but it looks to me like they are just continually kicking the problem down the road.  They need to act NOW,, to guarantee that nobody is made homeless or bankrupt while those responsible for using substandard cladding...and creating other fire safety issues, are tracked down and made to pay up.

 

Far too much of this sort of thing in the UK.

 

I'm in the middle of trying to get a resolution over badly/inapropriately sold and fitted Cavity Wall insulation.. which is causing me problems.. though fortunately nothing so dramatic as the cladding issue.

[DJ360 6,733]

https://theconversation.com/why-has-the-uks-covid-death-toll-been-so-high-inequality-may-have-played-a-role-156331?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[Brew 5,423]

Just another whine and whinge Col. Had they used the diatribe to establish a baseline and a platform to build a better solution I would view it more favourably. They are not stating anything we didn't know and quoting from the 19th century is little more than academic padding.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

Jim, just because I post something of interest, does not mean that I endorse every word of it.  It also doesn't mean that I am posting it as a solution.  I am simply disseminating information.

 

I think it is unfair to dismiss the article as 'whinging and whining.'  It is neither.  It is an analysis of the death toll here from Covid..and how it relates to inequality.  It also links the arguable failed response to the pressure from 'big money' to limit lockdowns etc. And on both of the above issues it reminds us that these exact same observations were made 150 + years ago... indicating that little has changed.

My final point is that whilst you and I may be reasonably 'clued up' about all of this.. the evidence from the Tabloid media and Social Media is clear that many people simply aren't.

 

In order for pressure for change to really develop, the 'masses' clearly first need to understand the problem.  Let's get that done before debating solutions.

 

 

[Brew 5,423]

Col I didn't say you did!  

The article seemed little more than a students seminar dissertation. By sheer coincidence there was a report on the dear old Beeb this very day that shows that though the poor do suffer, the poorest don't actually suffer most, (Sheffield University Research). The article glosses over what is a very serious problem and is nothing more than the author looking for an angle to have a pop at the government - and got it wrong!

Breaking the population into 10 income groups the third lowest, i.e. not the poorest have the highest death toll. The rich have always been able to afford better care and have the least, there's nothing new in that.

 

The knowledge that little has changed in the last 150 years is not a lot of use today and may even be part of the problem. Perhaps if they looked forward instead of backward they may be more useful, which leads me to your final point.

 

Tying social and financial inequality to Covid serves no purpose. Trying to satisfy and solve societies ills will take decades - if it ever comes about. We targeted the most vulnerable first and that's how it should be.

People don't want to know the ins and outs of a problem they simply want it to go away and that means finding a solution. Telling them it was similar way back when doesn't really help.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 3/12/2021 at 12:58 AM, Brew said:

People don't want to know the ins and outs of a problem they simply want it to go away and that means finding a solution. Telling them it was similar way back when doesn't really help.

 

Really? 

 

So when people offer solutions that don't suit the currently ascendant political ideology.. and in fact cite it as the reason for the failure of those solutions.... We should just accept the situation unquestioningly?

[DJ360 6,733]

Dominic Cummings up before some committee today. 

 

This man's arrogance is breathtaking.  I'm not usually a violent person. but I would never tire of slapping his face..

 

He is one of those who.. after using the Democratic system to gain power and influence.. argues that Democracy, Civil Service Bureaucracy and the scrutiny of Govt. by Parliament... is hampering the business of Govt.

 

That is a very dangerous proposition.

 

Discuss