advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... III

Status
Not open for further replies.
stevec67 said:
Stop taking the mick. You know damn well what both things mean, you haven't been living in a cave since the "statue protectors" wer dragging their knuckles around various cities a week or two ago.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve I forgot to reply to EV on that one. It was just a baby sarcastic joke really I thought he might think it even mildly amusing but it just brought confusion to him :D
 
I think he understood EV perfectly well, and was saying that the effort of responding to EV's rhetorical question would not be worth the benefit, if any.
 
tonerei said:
Not nice for the UK time will tell if this is just a trickle or a large trend. It will take a good few years to bottom out the stats and impact either way. I don't think information like that will linger long in the minds of a lot Brexiteers except maybe happiness that they are gone. Job done, vote well cast.
Click to expand...

It will be a problem if too many leave, not just for the loss of skills but the tax they pay. Quite a few highly skilled people, including myself, are actively investigating emigrating but are waiting for the outcome of the negotiations first as we would like to remain in the EU if we can. None of us like the direction of travel of the UK towards a US-style economy and legislature.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I'd be very surprised, as Sedwill was a May appointee, and Cummings was a Johnson appointee. If Cummings could survive his Castle Barnard eyesight test drive, he would appear to be unsackable.
Click to expand...
Cummings is like dry rot. Very hard to get rid of and by the time they inevitably do, he’ll have brought Whitehall down. Gove has had enough of experts and Cummings has had enough of the civil service.
 
eternumviti said:
It isn't beyond me to wonder what part Sedwill, who is after all a spook, might have had in the Cummings/Durham/CB disclosures.

Wild conspiracy theories aside, I thought that when BJ appointed Sedwill as Cabinet Secretary and Mandarin-in-Chief that he wasn't serious about Whitehall reform. It appears now that I was wrong.



No, but I quote the BBC 'Most experienced civil servants acknowledge that there are things that the system can do better.' Which is probably putting it mildly. Take the review of the Windrush scandal (during which I think I'm right in saying that Sedwill was Permament Secretary at the HO), which concluded that;

  • The Home Office was fragmented and decision-making was "siloed"
  • A target-dominated work environment within visas and immigration enforcement sections
  • A lack of empathy in some cases along with dehumanising jargon and cliches
  • Some senior civil servants and former ministers showed ignorance, lack of understanding and acceptance of the full extent of the injustice
  • Changes to legal aid contributed to the scandal
  • A history of prejudice towards black people and wider society also a factor
Click to expand...
“The poor people of heritage”. Another example of a post utterly dripping with Tory hypocrisy.
 
TheDecameron said:
Cummings is like dry rot. Very hard to get rid of and by the time they inevitably do, he’ll have brought Whitehall down. Gove has had enough of experts and Cummings has had enough of the civil service.
Click to expand...

ISTR that the first of Cumming's 'oddballs and weirdos' had to resign because of his views about eugenics. Which kind of puts all the guff about the Civil Service being 'institutionally racist' into context.

https://www.ft.com/content/7b75c07e-50b6-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1

'Boris Johnson is facing calls from Labour to sack a 27-year-old adviser who praised the merits of eugenics and reportedly called for “universal contraception” to prevent a “permanent underclass”.

Andrew Sabisky, a researcher who describes himself as a “super-forecaster”, was appointed after Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser, invited maverick freethinkers and “assorted weirdos” to apply for Downing Street jobs.

Speaking to Schools Week in 2016, Mr Sabisky said: “Eugenics are about selecting ‘for’ good things. Intelligence is largely inherited and correlates with better outcomes: physical health, income, lower mental illness.”

In the same interview he suggested that the widespread prescription of modafinil, an anti-narcolepsy drug, would be worth the death of a child a year. “From a societal perspective the benefits of giving everyone modafinil once a week are probably worth a dead kid once a year,” he said.'
 
One of his friends he tried to sneak in was an advocate of rape within marriage- a ‘total submission’ type of Christian man.
Edit: Sabisky.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Did you notice that in a significant number of constituencies, the Labour vote dropped by about the same number as were gained by the Brexit Party? And thereby let the Tories in. Your narrative (that people voted LibDem instead of Labour, letting the Tories in) seems to gloss over the point that a lot of 'your' people appear to have done a moonlight flit to the Brexit Party, and that's what really did for Labour, especially in breaking down that Red Wall. So now who voted 'incorrectly' due to an obsession with a single issue (hint: the party name is a broad clue)?
Click to expand...

The vaunted Red Wall was in reality a rickety pink fence - Labour had been losing touch with their core vote for years, way before Brexit. The Corbyn protest movement failed to grasp this simple fact.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I think he understood EV perfectly well, and was saying that the effort of responding to EV's rhetorical question would not be worth the benefit, if any.
Click to expand...

I got that Joe I was just thanking him. Me happy to play along with EV on that sort of post as we both pretend he is an innocent naive Liberal party voter who enjoys a glass of wine before taking the horse for a canter across the meadow whilst worrying about all those Greeks the nasty EU led by the Germans have left high and dry. He might pause on the brow of the hill to wonder what that Irish guy was talking about when he mentioned cakes and statues in a post on PFM ;)
 
Kirk said:
The vaunted Red Wall was in reality a rickety pink fence - Labour had been losing touch with their core vote for years, way before Brexit. The Corbyn protest movement failed to grasp this simple fact.
Click to expand...
That may well be true, but it doesn't counter my point, which was that it was in many cases Labour voters deserting to the BP which swung the election, rather than Remain voters failing to support Labour in favour of the LibDems, which was Brian's argument.
 
sean99 said:
People really did need to think a bit harder in June 2016 about what they were voting for, unfortunately, many did not due to an obsession with a single issue. (There’s too many of ‘em over ‘ere.)
Click to expand...
What about the 'Get Brexit Done' referendum confirmation election in Dec 2019?
 
Colin Barron said:
What about the 'Get Brexit Done' referendum confirmation election in Dec 2019?
Click to expand...

That's your projection. It was a "keep Corbyn out" election. Had "get Brexit done" been the only issue, Johnson wouldn't have been so desperate to avoid a second, more informed, referendum.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
That may well be true, but it doesn't counter my point, which was that it was in many cases Labour voters deserting to the BP which swung the election, rather than Remain voters failing to support Labour in favour of the LibDems, which was Brian's argument.
Click to expand...
Swinson scared everyone away and yes Labour voters went BP then Johnson when it became apparent that he would get Brexit done good and proper, stop the immigrants coming in and lavish some free money on their Boondocks.
 
Colin Barron said:
What about the 'Get Brexit Done' referendum confirmation election in Dec 2019?
Click to expand...

Surely that was a textbook example of people voting for one thing (Get Brexit Done) and ignoring the bigger picture (a buffoon in No 10 and a bunch of useless clowns in the Cabinet)?
 
Kirk said:
Just wondering - do you suffer from questiophobia?
Click to expand...
:D

SteveS1 said:
That's your projection, it was a "keep Corbyn out" election. Had "get Brexit done" been the only issue, Johnson wouldn't have been so desperate to avoid a second, more informed, referendum.
Click to expand...
It was a get brexit done election.

Joe Hutch said:
Surely that was a textbook example of people voting for one thing (Get Brexit Done) and ignoring the bigger picture (a buffoon in No 10 and a bunch of useless clowns in the Cabinet)?
Click to expand...
This is what I meant earlier when I said people really needed to think about what they were voting for at that GE last Dec.
 
Seeker_UK said:
If you work on the assumption that your post is going to rouse ire in someone, you'll probably be right most of the time.

Again, evidence? Still waiting for that evidence on lack of impartiality in the CS. Please feel free to post some.
Click to expand...

I'm not, at least at the moment, offering evidence, I posed a question instead.

Hard evidence in a case like this would anyway, I suspect, be hard to find and easy to deflect, and would realistically require an inquiry of the kind that I mentioned upstream in regard of Windrush. The CS is certainly a closed, deeply layered, hierarchical set of institutions, which like all bureaucracies, create complexities that self-protect those institutions, making them impenetrable to the executive, let alone ordinary mortals such as myself. There is ample evidence out there to show that they are not efficient - defence procurement, education, disastrous NHS IT failures, I'm sure the list is endless, and yes, I know they are subject to continual political interference, but there is a widespread sense that they are long overdue for reform. Indeed, successive governments have attempted unsuccesfully to do so, so deep are the foundations of the CS's defensive bunkers.

As regards the EU and brexit, the EU has for a long time presented a pretty seamless career path for civil servants, and the Berlaymont and Whitehall are considered to be nicely embedded within each other. So you have, for example, Treasury projections based on partial data inputs, and very sharp CS officials such as Olly Robbins and his loquacious predecessor, who purport to be working for the government when they are really working to water brexit down, preferably to the point not actually leaving, or in the worst case, BRINO.

Hard evidence? You an insider, so you know just how difficult that would be to acquire.

Incidentally, if you are a civil servant, how come you are able to spend time posting onto pfm during the working day? I pay your salary, get back to bleedin' work!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top