|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 22, 2023 10:49:20 GMT
No, making things clearer. This highlights the central problem with our current political landscape. The politicians 'sell' ideological crap that won't work, and people vote for said unworkable crap and then claim that those who know it's crap and can't work with it are 'refusing to enact the democratic will of the people'.  If you pursue this line of reasoning as a guideline, then elections are entirely pointless and we may as well give up and install a politburo |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2023 10:52:12 GMT
Truth of course is usually opinion. I had many an argument with a boss and much of the time I was wrong but sometimes not. It was my job to make work that with which I sometimes passionately disagreed even after voicing my disagreement. That is the nature of employment one either accepts or resigns. I find people with opinions easy to work with, usually a compromise is found, or a position better explained. The really difficult ones are those who just don't perform. These are the ones never mentioned in communication courses. I agree, an opinion honestly held and effectively communicated is invaluable even if it is dismissed. An opinion adamantly held to the exclusion of all else is a recipe for disaster if that opinion is held by one who can forestall and interrupt a defined policy agreed by a Minister in cabinet. I have on many occasions intimated to my bosses that procedures will not work in practice but it was my duty to try and make that process work to the best of my ability. I was often wrong and sometimes right but I never actively tried to block anything, I may have had the odd moan but then who has not. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Apr 22, 2023 10:59:15 GMT
Yes Red, but that's five pages of the genetically cloned offspring of Victor Meldrew and Alf Garnett spewing their usual outrage and vitriol. So far, this thread has only featured reasoned debate. Don't spoil it.  |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Apr 22, 2023 11:19:31 GMT
From what I hear, the issue was about HOW Raab spoke to people including threatening them and not having respectful discussions. This way of dealing with "subordinates" was and is frowned upon in environments which include servants and class based employment. The best managers do not have to belittle others and get far more compliance if spoken to with respect. Real life is not a parade ground. If you read any information on management skills, you will find whole chunks of it about communication skills. It does not recommend using position as a threat. That's all well and good, but faced with a staff member who's response to all your questions is "Yer I know" Its very difficult to use those communication skills. Then a manager should give said employee something to do commensurate with his/her intelligence. Apparently there were far more instances of Raab's unsuitable behaviour than the Gibraltar issue. There were apparently over 40 pages in the report. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 22, 2023 11:26:29 GMT
The civil service are no longer impartial and have become politicised.
British officials who spoke 'truth to power' in the lead up to the Gulf War were either sacked or side lined. Those who fell in line were either promoted or never called to account. It's clear the Northcote-Trevelyan system doesn't fit in this day and age. Brexit "blew the bloody doors off" this culture of entitlement within Whitehall.
A part of Britain's 'bottom-up' democracy has kept politicians in-step with the mood of 'the people' which is probably one of the reasons the UK has had fewer violent revolutions than most on the continent. To which in contrast leads European's by a 'top-down' approach where elitists and technocrats who are not held accountable to the people because they know what's best for 'the people' and decide for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 22, 2023 11:29:33 GMT
Angry Bootneck in his usual inimitable style
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 22, 2023 11:54:07 GMT
It's the job of Whitehall civil servants to speak truth to power, not to be unthinking professional sycophants. Someone behind the scenes needs to be able to say to politicians of whichever party that the ideologically-driven claptrap they spout at the dispatch box and through the media actually won't work in reality. Spoken like a true LibDem. It is the job of appointed Whitehall civil servants to implement government policy not to decide which government policy to implement. It is hardly a secret that since 2016 the left wing FDA have become increasingly militant and anti government. This situation should not be allowed to continue, Sunak should get this sorted now and if that means banning civil servants from joining the FDA or any other Trade Union then so be it. Every Home Secretary since Brexit has had a scrap with left wing civil servants who insist they're being bullied, it's pathetic. And please don't say civil servants are neutral. Sue Gray the senior civil servant who stitched up Boris then went to work for Starmer showed how neutral the civil service is. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 22, 2023 12:02:26 GMT
There should be no such a civil service trade unions - the concept itself is an abuse of power. Civil service pay and conditions should be implicitly decided by the electorate through elections
|
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Apr 22, 2023 12:02:41 GMT
No, making things clearer. This highlights the central problem with our current political landscape. The politicians 'sell' ideological crap that won't work, and people vote for said unworkable crap and then claim that those who know it's crap and can't work with it are 'refusing to enact the democratic will of the people'. If you pursue this line of reasoning as a guideline, then elections are entirely pointless and we may as well give up and install a politburo As it happens, Allison Pearson from the Telegraph was on Twitter today arguing that we should adopt the American system of parties in government installing their own cronies, acolytes and sycophants into civil service positions. God no. We need to revise our political system, sure, but to make sure that as parties in government swing toward their extremes, as is happening now, there are checks and balances to put the brakes on. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Apr 22, 2023 12:10:14 GMT
It's the job of Whitehall civil servants to speak truth to power, not to be unthinking professional sycophants. Someone behind the scenes needs to be able to say to politicians of whichever party that the ideologically-driven claptrap they spout at the dispatch box and through the media actually won't work in reality. Spoken like a true LibDem. It is the job of appointed Whitehall civil servants to implement government policy not to decide which government policy to implement. It is hardly a secret that since 2016 the left wing FDA have become increasingly militant and anti government. This situation should not be allowed to continue, Sunak should get this sorted now and if that means banning civil servants from joining the FDA or any other Trade Union then so be it. Every Home Secretary since Brexit has had a scrap with left wing civil servants who insist they're being bullied, it's pathetic. And please don't say civil servants are neutral. Sue Gray the senior civil servant who stitched up Boris then went to work for Starmer showed how neutral the civil service is. Spoken like a true centrist. When you were a sergeant, Red, would you have blindly followed the orders of your young Troopie when it was bloody obvious he was leading you all into danger, or would you rely on your experience to try and talk him round to a more sensible strategy? This is why we need consensual politics rather than adversarial politics. The current administration were installed on only 43.6% of the vote, so no government policy is enacting the will of the people, only that of the minority who were loyal, tribal or daft enough to vote Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 22, 2023 12:14:45 GMT
If you pursue this line of reasoning as a guideline, then elections are entirely pointless and we may as well give up and install a politburo We need to revise our political system, sure, but to make sure that as parties in government swing toward their extremes, as is happening now, there are checks and balances to put the brakes on. A powerful, politically motivated organisation that can trump elected governments just itself becomes an unelected government with no checks or balances You seem to be happy this organisation is checking your political adversaries and are blind to the implications. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 22, 2023 12:15:30 GMT
That's all well and good, but faced with a staff member who's response to all your questions is "Yer I know" Its very difficult to use those communication skills. The sack? Monday:Me. "Employee Fred can you please focus on getting X completed as its very important." Employee Fred. "Yes certainly this week" Monday a week laterMe... " Have you got X done?" Employee Fred... "No but I have done G and H Me... "OK but can you PLEASE complete X as its costing us a load of money." Employee Fred... " Yer I know" Me... "Ok so you'll concentrate on that then?" Employee Fred... "I'll do it today" Friday that week:Me... " Employee Fred why is that task completed, I told you it was critical" Employee Fred... "Yer I know" Me... "So why isn't it done?" Employee Fred... " I don't know, I'll do it next week" Me... but its too late now, we've lost the money" Employee Fred... "Yer I know" What's the next line? My wife tells me all but two were dismissed. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 22, 2023 12:26:55 GMT
Spoken like a true LibDem. It is the job of appointed Whitehall civil servants to implement government policy not to decide which government policy to implement. It is hardly a secret that since 2016 the left wing FDA have become increasingly militant and anti government. This situation should not be allowed to continue, Sunak should get this sorted now and if that means banning civil servants from joining the FDA or any other Trade Union then so be it. Every Home Secretary since Brexit has had a scrap with left wing civil servants who insist they're being bullied, it's pathetic. And please don't say civil servants are neutral. Sue Gray the senior civil servant who stitched up Boris then went to work for Starmer showed how neutral the civil service is. Spoken like a true centrist. When you were a sergeant, Red, would you have blindly followed the orders of your young Troopie when it was bloody obvious he was leading you all into danger, or would you rely on your experience to try and talk him round to a more sensible strategy? This is why we need consensual politics rather than adversarial politics. The current administration were installed on only 43.6% of the vote, so no government policy is enacting the will of the people, only that of the minority who were loyal, tribal or daft enough to vote Tory. I never knew a young Troopie who didn't regularly ask his troop Sgt for advice, but that is going off on a massive tangent. Civil servants should advise, but they should not 'expect' that advice to be implemented. Advice is advice not an instruction. What is the point of ministers if they simply rubber stamp civil service 'advice'. The job of appointed advisors is to advise, but ultimately ministers implement government policy and unlike appointed civil servants, ministers fall on their sword if those decisions are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 22, 2023 12:27:23 GMT
Zany, after the second failure you should have removed the job from him.
There is no communication.
If he is overloaded and can't manage it within a week, he needs to tell you, or report to you that he can't do it when such becomes clear to him. A shoddy way to treat anyone never mind the guy paying his wages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Apr 22, 2023 12:28:17 GMT
We need to revise our political system, sure, but to make sure that as parties in government swing toward their extremes, as is happening now, there are checks and balances to put the brakes on. A powerful, politically motivated organisation that can trump elected governments just itself becomes an unelected government with no checks or balances You seem to be happy this organisation is checking your political adversaries and are blind to the implications. Unfortunately, the very nature of the adversarial system I oppose makes partisanship a key aspect of their view of how things are. I would not characterise the civil service as 'a powerful, politically motivated organisation'. Their job, like mine when I was a soldier, is to be apolitical. However, in taking such a stance one risks appearing to be at odds with the incumbent administration, simply because you are not a yes-man or -woman. Let me put this in context; assuming Labour win the next election it won't be long before civil servants, along with the BBC and other media outlets, are accused of being 'politically motivated' against the Labour government. It's bad enough that our stupid system allows parties with minority support in the country to enjoy absolute rule for a period of time, without filling the backroom jobs with their partisan supporters as well. |
|
