• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

SpurMeUp said:
What upsets me with the civil service - not individuals per se - is a tendancy to avoid risk at all cost, over and above, innovation, cost saving, better services. There is a culture of 'keeping your head down' set by the ministers and politicians. I'm sure its not like that everywhere, and its a horrible generalisation, but has been my experience working with 2 different government ministries.
Click to expand...

Though don't forget the three basic principles of the civil service are that they are neutral, anonymous and permanent

In my experience the frontline staff are generally the sort of people who are referees at the weekend. Though the ones in equivalent jobs in outsourced agencies are even worse. But there are some smart cookies in the behind scenes policy areas.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Though don't forget the three basic principles of the civil service are that they are neutral, anonymous and permanent

In my experience the frontline staff are generally the sort of people who are referees at the weekend. Though the ones in equivalent jobs in outsourced agencies are even worse. But there are some smart cookies in the behind scenes policy areas.
Click to expand...

That's what is frustrating. Smart people who could get the country running better, if there were incentives and the mandate to do so. What a waste!
 
SpurMeUp said:
Depends who's desk it lands on. Whether they are pro-Leave or Remain!
Click to expand...

monkeybarry said:
Civil servants are politically neutral
Click to expand...

SpurMeUp said:
That's what is frustrating. Smart people who could get the country running better, if there were incentives and the mandate to do so. What a waste!
Click to expand...

I don't think you can generalise about civil servants any more than you can generalise about business people. The departmental families all have their own personalities, as do the individual agencies. Some, like GDS or DExEu, are staffed with bright young things, others have ranks of other-worldly specialists and time servers.

The latter type tend to be fiercely political with a small p, because the competition for promotion, resources and petty victories is so tough. This means that the decision about whether to accelerate or decelerate a particular initiative is affected by who is running it, their power base and their allegiances.

But the basic issue is capacity and tolerance for risk. Those remain much lower in Whitehall than in real-world public service delivery (including policing), which is why this investigation will not proceed quickly.

@monkeybarry - any disagreement on any of this from our in-house mandarin?
 
Last edited:
ShipOfGoldblum said:
I don't think you can generalise about civil servants any more than you can generalise about business people....

But the basic issue is capacity and tolerance for risk. Those remain much lower in Whitehall than in real-world public service delivery (including policing)...
Click to expand...

Excuse the editing. However, it doesn't have to be like that. It is more trickey to setup a civil services than a private enterprise which has the beautifully simple metric of profit or loss to determine success. Government has to factor in cost - to us the people - but also value...to us the people. Doesn't mean it can't be improved. The taxes in this country are some of the highest in the world. Shouldn't we demand more from the real agents of government?
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Excuse the editing. However, it doesn't have to be like that. It is more trickey to setup a civil services that a private enterprise which has the beautifully simple metric of success - profit or loss. Government has to factor in cost - to us the people - but also value...to us the people. Doesn't mean it can't be improved. The taxes in this country are some of the highest in the world. We should demand more from the real agents of government.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can improve the civil service much while cutting it. You can either do efficiency or transformation. Trying to do both at the same time and pretending they are the same thing was a political choice, made in 2010. The capacity issue clearly comes from that, but the risk one does as well.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
I don't think you can improve the civil service much while cutting it. You can either do efficiency or transformation. Trying to do both at the same time and pretending they are the same thing was a political choice, made in 2010. The capacity issue clearly comes from that, but the risk one does as well.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Of course it can be improved, cuts or no cuts. In every organisation there are people sitting around not doing much, and a significant amount more in government funded organisations. How about the governement leads on UK efficiency by improving its own? As you say, you can't generalise too much. Each department, each agency, needs to be pulled apart, their goals refreshed and new motivation inserted. A motivation to excell rather than avoid embarrassment and risk.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Nonsense. Of course it can be improved, cuts or no cuts. In every organisation there are people sitting around not doing much, and probably lot more in government funded organisations. As you say, you can't generalise too much. Each department, each agency, needs to be pulled apart, their goals refreshed and new motivation inserted. A motivation to excell rather than avoid embarrassment and risk.
Click to expand...

Which is a reasonable line to take, and part of the reason for departmental realignments and renamings (the other, of course, being power games in the Cabinet). But it's silly to say "cuts or no cuts". Change programmes are very expensive. Redundancies are hellishly expensive, especially if you want some degree of control over who stays and who goes. You need a lot of spare capacity to do what you suggest, and you can't do it all at once. So you also need a stable and secure government with a long term plan and a cabinet secretary who sees eye to eye with the prime minister. What you need to do, in fact, is bring back the 1997-2010 administration, complete with Gus O'Donnell.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Which is a reasonable line to take, and part of the reason for departmental realignments and renamings (the other, of course, being power games in the Cabinet). But it's silly to say "cuts or no cuts". Change programmes are very expensive. Redundancies are hellishly expensive, especially if you want some degree of control over who stays and who goes. You need a lot of spare capacity to do what you suggest, and you can't do it all at once. So you also need a stable and secure government with a long term plan and a cabinet secretary who sees eye to eye with the prime minister. What you need to do, in fact, is bring back the 1997-2010 administration, complete with Gus O'Donnell.
Click to expand...

I've met people who actually liked working under David Willetts' methods in BIS. The approach was to stop doing all business as usual/inertia tasks and focus all attention on just 5 priority areas.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I've met people who actually liked working under David Willetts' methods in BIS. The approach was to stop doing all business as usual/inertia tasks and focus all attention on just 5 priority areas.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sounds a bit Hawthorne effect, though. Also, if you can't redefine your pet project as falling within one of five priority areas, you shouldn't be working in policy.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I've met people who actually liked working under David Willetts' methods in BIS. The approach was to stop doing all business as usual/inertia tasks and focus all attention on just 5 priority areas.
Click to expand...

That would explain a lot. I had various meetings with BIS over a number of years, and I’m not surprised they were disbanded. The waste, inefficiency and rooster ups were embarrassing.

I’m sure our area was not a priority. And to be fair, there is a lot to be said for doing fewer things well, finishing them, and moving on.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
Seems once this Northern Ireland issue is sorted the deal will be agreed in the main. May seems confident that she's got a good deal for the UK. For all the bluster about another vote, this Brexit is happening soon isn't it?
 
awesome dawson said:
Seems once this Northern Ireland issue is sorted the deal will be agreed in the main. May seems confident that she's got a good deal for the UK. For all the bluster about another vote, this Brexit is happening soon isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hopefully, they will sort something out. IIRC, this is only the "divorce agreement" which then secures a transition period. Then they still have to negotiate the future trade arrangement. This being Theresa May, I expect she will drag everything out as long as possible so she can stay in charge of the Tory Party (and stay PM) until the end of this Parliament.
 
the dza said:
Hopefully, they will sort something out. IIRC, this is only the "divorce agreement" which then secures a transition period. Then they still have to negotiate the future trade arrangement. This being Theresa May, I expect she will drag everything out as long as possible so she can stay in charge of the Tory Party (and stay PM) until the end of this Parliament.
Click to expand...
There's risk there too. Even she must be able to calculate that if she's seen by her party to be dragging this out for any longer than absolutely necessary, they'll have her out on her arse.

I don't think she has to rush, but if she gets to the next election without an irreversible deal she'll lose worse than Gordon Brown.
 
I think she'll be gone by May. The euphoria of getting the withdrawal over the line in March will last about 2 weeks before the knives are out.

Everyone knows May can't win the '22 election, so they'll replace her with someone with more of a chance of doing that, and let them bask in the more triumphal Brexit stuff (trade deals).
 
awesome dawson said:
Seems once this Northern Ireland issue is sorted the deal will be agreed in the main. May seems confident that she's got a good deal for the UK. For all the bluster about another vote, this Brexit is happening soon isn't it?
Click to expand...

2 years in and less than 4 months until we supposedly leave the EU, we have not even got an exit agreement in place! If it's "happening" it's not looking convincing. There remains no published plan on a UK out the EU. No one from the government to UKIP have a vision for the UK post Brexit. Meanwhile those who understand the economics and legal issues continue to call for another vote. From the UKs top lawyers:
  • "Democratic government is not frozen in time"
  • In the 1975 referndum voters had a defined choice. But in 2016 "Voters faced a choice between a known reality and an unknown alternative. In the campaign, un-testable claims took the place of facts and reality."
  • "voters are entitled to know what they are voting for."

Biz Leaders:

  • "The business community was promised that, if the country voted to leave, there would continue to be frictionless trade with the EU and the certainty about future relations that we need to invest for the long term."
  • "The uncertainty over the past two years has already led to a slump in investment."
  • "We are now facing either a blindfold or a destructive hard Brexit.
  • "Given that neither was on the ballot in 2016, we believe the ultimate choice should be handed back to the public with a People's Vote."
----

Meanwhile £8m of funding that paid for some of the most questionable Brexit material - images of Asians and Turks queueing etc which have no relavance to the EU - seem to have come from a forign source outside the UK. UKIP who have one goal - to get the UK out the EU - do not have a policy or ideas on how to keep peace in Ireland while exiting the EU. Which tells you all you need to know about how well they thought Brexit through.

But the biggest problem is this simple lose lose logic: soft Brexit leaves the UK a vasal state of Europe, a rule taker, with less sovrignity; a hard Brexit leaves the UK poorer, losing many many jobs overnight, and causing all sorts of import and export issues. Becuase literally nothing has been locked down, no one can outline what will happen and confirm the above yet. Over 2 years in its all still speculation! Brexit is far from a done deal. The problems it presents are significant, and can't be implemented quickly. To me the options are:
  1. A long drawn out Brexit with the UK likely to end up aligned with the EU, following EU laws, a bit like Switzerland, who have free movment. Or,
  2. Another vote. And maybe we can cancel the uncertainty, lack of investment, less growth and Exchequer revenue, and release the break on lifting Austerity. Make no mistake all this nonsense for 2 years is costing us. It hasn't fully filtered through yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back