So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
Burnham is ‘Ed Miliband with a scouse accent.’ – But as Bonaparte once said, ‘never interrupt your enemy’ etc…
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?
I my experience (not finance or banking, but multinational business), yes - its a lot more difficult to get round 'principles' than 'rules'......
Frankie Boyle was right - Cameron really is an evil genius.
"Here, in what may well be the final years of our civilisation, I would like to ask a question that has been worrying me for some time. What if David Cameron is a genius? A shrewd and malevolent psychopath who thinks two moves deeper into the game than any of his opponents? What if there sits in Downing Street today a modern-day Moriarty"
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?
I my experience (not finance or banking, but multinational business), yes - its a lot more difficult to get round 'principles' than 'rules'......
Hmmm. But surely that depends on having people inside the group (at whatever level) who agree on how to interpret those 'principles'.
I'd trust hard-and-fast rules over 'principles' any day of the week.
But it's really not my area of expertise. I'm an engineer, and we tend to quite like rules. Well, except for dress code and hygiene ones. ;-)
@afneil: PM's former director of communications Andy Coulson cleared of lying in court after a Scottish judge threw out charges of alleged perjury.
A head has just exploded "scanners" style in an "Offy" somewhere on Merseyside.
If the judge threw out the charges and they never got to the jury, then how on earth did all this come to trial?
Sounds like it is prosecutors not knowing the law. Or, if you put a conspiracy hat on, this whole thing has been a politically inspired witch-hunt. Given the lack of ire heaped on the Mirror and others, perhaps we should all be wearing tinfoil hats ...
Kendall is electoral suicide akin to Clegg, the Labour party would cease to be relevant. If you end up with Tory policy with nuances then people will just vote for the real thing or a genuine alternative as the Lib Dems have found
The one thing to say about choosing Burnham is that he'd make the choice of EdM in 2010 look inspired. He is a bit like Michael Foot but without the intellect, humour or the communication skills. A loser.
Now, now let's not prevaricate - say what you mean
Before the Labour members focus too much on a leader who can appeal beyond the core vote, they need to also bear in mind IMHO that they are electing an opposition leader. Someone who can harry the government and cause trouble in parliament at every twist and turn (gov has small majority). Although I'm covered in all eventualities except Burnham, I do wonder whether Cooper rather than Kendal would be much better at that side of things.
Frankie Boyle was right - Cameron really is an evil genius.
"Here, in what may well be the final years of our civilisation, I would like to ask a question that has been worrying me for some time. What if David Cameron is a genius? A shrewd and malevolent psychopath who thinks two moves deeper into the game than any of his opponents? What if there sits in Downing Street today a modern-day Moriarty"
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
" Cameron had no political priorities whatsoever and had always operated through a system of chaos."
“It’s the nature of the Cameron team. Quite simply, chaos is all they have ever known. They operate in a bubble in which it is at most 10 days planning or more usually 48 hours or 72 hours. There is no long-term priority. There is no long-term plan. The central people operate in that kind of culture. They don’t think anything can change. They just think that is politics. His most important advisers are Ed Llewellyn and Craig Oliver – both of them are totally and utterly useless. It is not their fault. They are just in the wrong job. The fault lies in Cameron putting them there.
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
Of course he is part of the metropolitan political elite.
He has almost no real world work experience - having gone from working for Tessa Jowell to working for Chris Smith as a SpAd and then into Parliament.
He offers no real change - other than having done his degree at Cambridge rather than Oxford.
He hasn't got his hands dirty with real work in his life. He might work to retain his original accent - but he is still part of the political class that has come to dominate Labour politics in recent years.
He is part of the problem - not the solution. He is so closely allied to the past failings of Labour.
Will he still be making the extra pension contributions though which as I remember it came out of the 10%? Its plain daft to continue the salary imbalances. But then again, gesture politics makes him an ideal choice for labour leader.
Breaking: Interpol issues red notices (alert) for four FIFA officials, including Jack Warner.
I really need to get some more popcorn.
This is not a story about football - or at least that is only the backdrop. It is a story about money and greed and hubris. Like all the best stories. There will be plenty of others caught up in it before it's over, I'll bet.
I've got a little philosophy about this. People will kill someone for a few hundred quid. When people deal with figures of millions, greed is such that many will be tempted to enrich themselves. Preferably legally, but some will do it illegally.
Therefore when you have anything that deals with large sums of money - whether it is sport, banking, politics, business - you need internal systems and rules, and external openness, audits and clarity, to try to deter people from committing fraud. I'd also add equality to that list, as cliques seem to be a significant problem.
Sadly, many of the very largest organisations, and especially international ones, take exactly the opposite view that their dealings need to be kept secret.
Culture, transparency and zero tolerance are what matter.
Rules are helpful, but if they become an end in themselves then they can become counterproductive as people play to the rules rather than the spirit of the legislation.
I am not involved in the banking or finance industries, and have little direct knowledge of them, but is your last sentence really true?
I my experience (not finance or banking, but multinational business), yes - its a lot more difficult to get round 'principles' than 'rules'......
Hmmm. But surely that depends on having people inside the group (at whatever level) who agree on how to interpret those 'principles'.
I'd trust hard-and-fast rules over 'principles' any day of the week.
But it's really not my area of expertise. I'm an engineer, and we tend to quite like rules. Well, except for dress code and hygiene ones. ;-)
"My guess is that after their terrible general election defeat and experience of Ed Miliband the movement will be looking for someone who has the potential to appeal to more than just the party’s core base. From my perspective Burnham is by far the weakest on that count – Kendall the strongest."
But choosing Kendall could cost Labour some of its core base, meaning it'd need to gain voters just to make up for the voters it loses. I think it's fair to say Kendall also wouldn't "appeal" to Scottish voters.
If he In/Yes side are splintered, as seems likely (with these comments and the SNP apparently having their own In campaign) that presents a potential opportunity for Out, provided they're competent [a big if, I know]. They can pick and choose differing comments and go on the attack.
"The SNP say we should stay in because of X" could be directed at Conservative/WWC types who are unlikely to want to agree with X.
"David Cameron wants more competitiveness" could be directed at WWC and Labour types. And so on.
I fail to see how OGH can say Burnham 'is by far the weakest' leadership candidate in terms of broad appeal when the latest yougov has Burnham ahead not only with Labour voters, but with UKIP, LD and even Tory voters too as well as in Scotland in the latest Sun yougov. Labour actually need a leader who can hold their core as well as win back voters who have defected to UKIP, the Tories and the SNP from Labour , not who is popular with staunch Tories https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Sturgeon warns of a backlash: "The SNP leader used a speech in Brussels to say a vote to take the UK out of the European Union could cause a "groundswell of anger" in Scotland."
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
Of course he is part of the metropolitan political elite.
He has almost no real world work experience - having gone from working for Tessa Jowell to working for Chris Smith as a SpAd and then into Parliament.
He offers no real change - other than having done his degree at Cambridge rather than Oxford.
He hasn't got his hands dirty with real work in his life. He might work to retain his original accent - but he is still part of the political class that has come to dominate Labour politics in recent years.
He is part of the problem - not the solution. He is so closely allied to the past failings of Labour.
Ah, that's different. Both parties are jam packed full of the metropolitans - look at Dave, Govey, Bozza, George etc. What Burnham isn't, though, is some kind of doctrinaire metropolitan lefty espousing out of touch EdM-like nonsense from a lovely house in Dartmouth Park. If that's going to be the attack line it's one that will easily be repelled.
Frankie Boyle was right - Cameron really is an evil genius.
"Here, in what may well be the final years of our civilisation, I would like to ask a question that has been worrying me for some time. What if David Cameron is a genius? A shrewd and malevolent psychopath who thinks two moves deeper into the game than any of his opponents? What if there sits in Downing Street today a modern-day Moriarty"
I fail to see how OGH can say Burnham 'is by far the weakest' leadership candidate in terms of broad appeal when the latest yougov has Burnham ahead not only with Labour voters, but with UKIP, LD and even Tory voters too as well as in Scotland in the latest Sun yougov. Labour actually need a leader who can hold their core as well as win back voters who have defected to UKIP, the Tories and the SNP from Labour , not who is popular with staunch Tories https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Polling about people the voters have barely heard of isn't very useful. You'll mostly be getting name recognition.
It seem's the trial should never have been brought in the place first as whether or not Coulson hacked phones had nothing to do with Sherdian lying under oath about being a cheater and visiting a massage parlour...
@loveandgarbage: Two years ago the late Paul McConville wrote a piece on Coulson evidence in the Sheridan case. Now looks prescient https://t.co/omIIN0Gz6S
The BBC story was timestamped 10.43...thought I was being quick off the mark.
I forget that if there's a Breaking News story on BBC news, you can switch to Sky who have a reporter on the phone at the scene, And if the BBC have a reporter on the phone, SKY will have pictures...
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
That highlights the problem. I have no issue with those as principles: few people would. And it makes a good back-up.
But what is 'fairly' ? How do you define 'integrity' ?
I might say that ''treating your customers fairly' meant never making more than 5% profit a year out of each customer. You may say it meant explaining T&C's for them. A.n.other might say it meant ensuring their money was secure and safe.
I don't doubt your personal integrity - you behave utterly like a gentleman at all times. I have no doubt that you would interpret those phrases in a fair and equitable way. But others may not, especially if it is in their interests not to.
Perhaps those principles ought to be the bedrock on which the rules are made: the guiding principles. But the rules will be there to ensure they are kept to. And if smart people 'get around them' deliberately, then they should be fired. It's the old tax-avoidance-evasion issue once again, ;-)
Kendall won't appeal to those lost to SNP or Green and probably not to those lost to UKIP, nor will she attract those who don't vote, Burnham is the best at attracting the White working class men and at challenging the narative that they are all the same.
Subdividing the electorate then trying to win with a rainbow type coalition within the Labour party is not a recipe for success.
Labour will win when it realises that the interests of women, BME Britons, the WWC, Scotland, Wales and Middle England are actually fairly closely aligned. There is far more that unites us than divides us. It is putting together a coherent and believable set of policies that needs to be the priority for the new leader, not refighting the 2005-2010 parliament. It is why Kendall is the best candidate, with Andy Burnham second. Incidentally these two seem to get on well together, and I can see that Burnham may make a good shadow CoE. He was good as Chief Sec to the Treasury.
If Kendall gets er... blattered then that's it then for you being tempted to vote Labour I guess. Would the Tory party led by the son of a Rochdale bus driver tempt you?
I could vote for Burnham, would be likely for Kendall. I would not vote for Javid. It not his origins that I have against him it is his politics.
Genuinely sorry Mr dancer but its your argument that is fractured. All of life is complicated, trying to split of votes for in or out as you suggest is pretty fanciful. I see no reason why political parties if officially supporting either in or out should campaign together. It is the OUT side who will likely have the problems of putting together a coherent body. Assuming we get some suitable result from negotiations. But I again suggest that we should not worry too much, if we leave and join the EEA we can have pretty much the same EU relationship without the political closer union.
But one day people will wake up to the fact that the various anti EU factions will never be satisfied, and will always want to stop the world in order to get off.
Technicality ? That the prosecutions case was a pile of manure ?
IANAL but it seems that a hypothetical person can in theory lie all they like in the witness box, but if it's not relevant to that specific case, then it's "not perjury". OK....Sounds like a technicality to me :-)
Whether or not Coulson actually lied we cannot know (from this) of course, and I am not saying he did, but normally if someone is acquitted of perjury, it implies that they have been found to have told the truth all along.
It seem's the trial should never have been brought in the place first as whether or not Coulson hacked phones had nothing to do with Sherdian lying under oath about being a cheater and visiting a massage parlour...
Time for Comrade Tommy to rejoin the SNP and contest the Orkney bye election ?
Technicality ? That the prosecutions case was a pile of manure ?
IANAL but it seems that a hypothetical person can in theory lie all they like in the witness box, but if it's not relevant to that specific case, then it's "not perjury". OK....Sounds like a technicality to me :-)
Whether or not Coulson actually lied we cannot know (from this) of course, and I am not saying he did, but normally if someone is acquitted of perjury, it implies that they have been found to have told the truth all along.
No, it implies that they have not been found beyond reasonable doubt not to have told the truth all along. A very different thing.
IANAL but it seems that a hypothetical person can in theory lie all they like in the witness box, but if it's not relevant to that specific case, then it's "not perjury". OK....Sounds like a technicality to me :-)
It seem's the trial should never have been brought in the place first as whether or not Coulson hacked phones had nothing to do with Sherdian lying under oath about being a cheater and visiting a massage parlour...
Time for Comrade Tommy to rejoin the SNP and contest the Orkney bye election ?
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
See that's yours and Labours error. It's all about perception. And it's not me you have to convince but everyone else on the doorstep. Mind you someone once said on here that Labour has the best ground game going so it shouldn't be a problem for labour ...Err...Should it?
I understand (I think) an edge case, but what is a corner case please??
Believe it or not, it's as simple as where two (or more) edge cases meet.
For instance, in chip design they (should!) look at corner cases of temperature and voltage. A chip might work well at the maximum rated temperature, or the maximum rated voltage, but if you have both at once it fails.
This means customers understandably get annoyed. Your tests shows it works according to specification at the highest voltage, but it fails for them in their tests. It turns out that they're driving another characteristic at a maximum.
Can you tell I've spent a little too much of my life sitting around environment and anechoic chambers ...
Mr. Jessop, you mean like making a ship unsinkable?
Yes, although I believe the Titanic 'unsinkable' claim is a myth.
A better example is the German Maglev crash that killed 23 people. If I recall correctly, they said the automated systems and the entire design itself would prevent a collision between two trains. ISTR there were claims that maglev crashes were impossible.
What all the experts and designers amazingly ignored was that the track would require cleaning and repairs, so a manually-operated maintenance train would be allowed on the tracks. A maintenance train that was invisible to the automated systems unless a switch was flicked, and they relied on human radio messages to state the line was clear.
A massive problem with computerised systems is the interface between humans and the systems. Edge and corner cases are particularly troublesome. It would not surprise me if this is what happened yesterday.
Most interesting.
I understand (I think) an edge case, but what is a corner case please??
A corner case is when two (or more) conditions are outside a system's design limits.
Arguably, worse than edge cases simply because the combinatorial explosion makes testing hard and/or impractical.
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
Perhaps those principles ought to be the bedrock on which the rules are made: the guiding principles. But the rules will be there to ensure they are kept to.
Training (so people understand expectations) is the key. The problem is 'rules' are inventively bent. 'Its within the rules' - 'Is that how you would like to be treated?'.....
As Charles alludes, it is a difference between the US and the UK - and in part I think it goes back to our original pan-national organisations - the military.
The US learned from Prussia, not us.
I worked in an American multinational, and the difference in reaction to pronouncements from on high between Brits and Americans was revealing.
If the boss said something, the American response would typically be 'yes sir!', the British would be effusively polite, quietly thinking 'what hole are we going to have to dig him out of now?'
Despite their 'classless' myth, I found Americans to be a lot more hierarchical than Brits.....
So basically Labour agree to change entirely by electing the most extreme leftie of the bunch, the unions choice and a hangover from the Blair / Brown and Milliband years.
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
So, in what ways is Andy Burnham an extreme leftie? Is it his support for a lowering of the welfare cap, his calls for much tighter immigration controls, his focus on deficit reduction or some other Bolshevik pronouncement that has passed me by.
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
See that's yours and Labours error. It's all about perception. And it's not me you have to convince but everyone else on the doorstep. Mind you someone once said on here that Labour has the best ground game going so it shouldn't be a problem for labour ...Err...Should it?
I agree. As I say, Burnham is not my choice - but I doubt he will come across as an extreme leftie on the doorstep. More of an issue will be whether he is up to the job. I can't see him matching Cameron in the Commons and I have serious doubts about his leadership abilities. He gives the impression not of being a leftie, but of being a bit lightweight.
Technicality ? That the prosecutions case was a pile of manure ?
IANAL but it seems that a hypothetical person can in theory lie all they like in the witness box, but if it's not relevant to that specific case, then it's "not perjury". OK....Sounds like a technicality to me :-)
Whether or not Coulson actually lied we cannot know (from this) of course, and I am not saying he did, but normally if someone is acquitted of perjury, it implies that they have been found to have told the truth all along.
No, it implies that they have not been found beyond reasonable doubt not to have told the truth all along. A very different thing.
But that wasn't addressed in this case. Coulson's lawyers didn't bother to address the issue of whether he lied or not, only that what he said, true or not, was not relevant to the Sheridan case.
"The car was speeding, that may or may not be the case, but can you prove I was driving? No? OK - I am not guilty then"
I will leave it. It was put rather better in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78
Have to say I think OGH is totally misreading Burnham and I have never voted Labour in my life. Educated at a St Helens comprehensive and Cambridge he is personable and was promoted by Blair, he is no Foot 2, he could hold Labour's core, unlike maybe Kendall, and add some voters who switched after backing Blair and some UKIP voters too, he is also the most popular in Scotland. Indeed, a Mail poll last year of voters shown clips of candidates had him increasing Labour's total to 36%, behind only Umunna and Alan Johnson http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826937/Ed-shadow-minister-plunges-dagger-Tristram-Hunt-joins-Labour-revolt-poll-says-Miliband-liability.html
Think of all the Scottish food banks that this trial could have paid for...
How many pairs of tartan trews..?
Or nights in the Peninsula Hotel, Chicago, or more seriously, under privileged students to University because of the Scottish middle class subsidy of free University tuition?
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
That highlights the problem. I have no issue with those as principles: few people would. And it makes a good back-up.
But what is 'fairly' ? How do you define 'integrity' ?
I might say that ''treating your customers fairly' meant never making more than 5% profit a year out of each customer. You may say it meant explaining T&C's for them. A.n.other might say it meant ensuring their money was secure and safe.
I don't doubt your personal integrity - you behave utterly like a gentleman at all times. I have no doubt that you would interpret those phrases in a fair and equitable way. But others may not, especially if it is in their interests not to.
Perhaps those principles ought to be the bedrock on which the rules are made: the guiding principles. But the rules will be there to ensure they are kept to. And if smart people 'get around them' deliberately, then they should be fired. It's the old tax-avoidance-evasion issue once again, ;-)
But again, it really is not my area.
The whole basis of the financial services industry depends on the regulators judgement as to whether you are a "fit and proper" person to conduct business. If they decide that you aren't then they suspend your license. And there is no appeal.
If you have detailed rules then someone can work around them. There are literally thousands of people in the City whose job is to advise companies on how to maximise their interests while complying with precise rules. You don't want them playing that game with the market as well.
The most effective sanction in the City, for instance, is the 'cold shoulder'. It is very rarely used because it is so draconian: no regulated institution is permitted to work with the individuals who are subject to a cold-shoulder ruling. But that's a penalty that is applied by a non-statutory body.
EdinTokyo Maybe, but Kendall will need to take the lead in the polls by September to win, both Blair and Cameron and indeed Major, our last 3 elected PMs, were all ahead with voters as a whole in the polls by the time they won their party's leadership
Technicality ? That the prosecutions case was a pile of manure ?
IANAL but it seems that a hypothetical person can in theory lie all they like in the witness box, but if it's not relevant to that specific case, then it's "not perjury". OK....Sounds like a technicality to me :-)
Whether or not Coulson actually lied we cannot know (from this) of course, and I am not saying he did, but normally if someone is acquitted of perjury, it implies that they have been found to have told the truth all along.
No, it implies that they have not been found beyond reasonable doubt not to have told the truth all along. A very different thing.
But that wasn't addressed in this case. Coulson's lawyers didn't bother to address the issue of whether he lied or not, only that what he said, true or not, was not relevant to the Sheridan case.
"The car was speeding, that may or may not be the case, but can you prove I was driving? No? OK - I am not guilty then"
I will leave it. It was put rather better in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78
What is your point? If you want to convict someone of speeding then, yes, you have to prove both that a car was speeding, and that they were driving it. Seems fair to me.
A 'convoy with outriders'? One to remember, next time Scot Plod are moaning about cuts. If they can afford to waste money on stunts such as this, they clearly don't have a problem with funding.
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
Didn't Gordon Brown famously (one might say spitefully) cut his own pay by 25%?
Wasn’t aware it was as much as 25%, but yes, Gordon Brown cut the PM’s salary knowing it would only effect his successor’s wage packet and final pension – petty and nasty sums up GB perfectly.
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
If they can afford to do it - it would suggest they are currently over-paid - along, I'd say with thousands of public and local authority management, including those in the NHS. Only when they operate like managers in the private sector should their remunerations be similar - and only then subject to swift demotion and dismissal when they underperform.
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
If they can afford to do it - it would suggest they are currently over-paid - along, I'd say with thousands of public and local authority management, including those in the NHS. Only when they operate like managers in the private sector should their remunerations be similar - and only then subject to swift demotion and dismissal when they underperform.
Just implement my idea: no-one in public service should receive more pay than the Prime Minister. ;-)
MP,s salaries are pathetic..I would not work for that level of pay..their expenses need looking at... they are fare too generous... staff should be paid direct from government sources and all comps etc should be centrally provided and handed back when the mp leaves post.
It's the difference between principles-based (UK) and rules-based compliance (US, but increasingly UK as well).
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
That highlights the problem. I have no issue with those as principles: few people would. And it makes a good back-up.
But what is 'fairly' ? How do you define 'integrity' ?
I might say that ''treating your customers fairly' meant never making more than 5% profit a year out of each customer. You may say it meant explaining T&C's for them. A.n.other might say it meant ensuring their money was secure and safe.
I don't doubt your personal integrity - you behave utterly like a gentleman at all times. I have no doubt that you would interpret those phrases in a fair and equitable way. But others may not, especially if it is in their interests not to.
Perhaps those principles ought to be the bedrock on which the rules are made: the guiding principles. But the rules will be there to ensure they are kept to. And if smart people 'get around them' deliberately, then they should be fired. It's the old tax-avoidance-evasion issue once again, ;-)
But again, it really is not my area.
The whole basis of the financial services industry depends on the regulators judgement as to whether you are a "fit and proper" person to conduct business. If they decide that you aren't then they suspend your license. And there is no appeal.
If you have detailed rules then someone can work around them. There are literally thousands of people in the City whose job is to advise companies on how to maximise their interests while complying with precise rules. You don't want them playing that game with the market as well.
The most effective sanction in the City, for instance, is the 'cold shoulder'. It is very rarely used because it is so draconian: no regulated institution is permitted to work with the individuals who are subject to a cold-shoulder ruling. But that's a penalty that is applied by a non-statutory body.
RD Hardly pathetic, they are in the top 10% of income earners for a job which requires no qualifications or previous experience other than being able to win most votes in a constituency. They should not be paid any less to attract reasonable talent, but most of an MPs role now is being a glorified social worker with a bit of legislative and executive scrutiny thrown in, it is not rocket science
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
Didn't Gordon Brown famously (one might say spitefully) cut his own pay by 25%?
Wasn’t aware it was as much as 25%, but yes, Gordon Brown cut the PM’s salary knowing it would only effect his successor’s wage packet and final pension – petty and nasty sums up GB perfectly.
I love this comment on Facebook from Robert Smithson:-
"Gutted that a good man, who fought for fairness in football has been forced from his job. Football will never find a more stalwart, honest champion than Sepp Blatter."
A 'convoy with outriders'? One to remember, next time Scot Plod are moaning about cuts. If they can afford to waste money on stunts such as this, they clearly don't have a problem with funding.
Surely with a co-operative prisoner posing no risk of escape, it would have been faster and cheaper to put him on a commercial flight from London with an officer or two for company?
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
Didn't Gordon Brown famously (one might say spitefully) cut his own pay by 25%?
Wasn’t aware it was as much as 25%, but yes, Gordon Brown cut the PM’s salary knowing it would only effect his successor’s wage packet and final pension – petty and nasty sums up GB perfectly.
On MPs pay, I wonder if they'll ever take a raise. One thing that should be addressed is the fact that Sturgeon gets paid more than the PM.
@matt_dathan: The MPs who say they'll reject their 10% pay rise shows just how out of touch they are - who in the real world would do the same?
If they can afford to do it - it would suggest they are currently over-paid - along, I'd say with thousands of public and local authority management, including those in the NHS. Only when they operate like managers in the private sector should their remunerations be similar - and only then subject to swift demotion and dismissal when they underperform.
Just implement my idea: no-one in public service should receive more pay than the Prime Minister. ;-)
Comments
Yup! I can see how that can work ...............
For all the other parties.
Back in 2010 I topped up on James Purnell as next Lab leader.
Two hours later he announced he was standing down as an MP.
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/606014151865999361
"Here, in what may well be the final years of our civilisation, I would like to ask a question that has been worrying me for some time. What if David Cameron is a genius? A shrewd and malevolent psychopath who thinks two moves deeper into the game than any of his opponents? What if there sits in Downing Street today a modern-day Moriarty"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/david-cameron-moriarty-downing-street-radical-thatcher
Burnham is not my choice of Labour leader, but if the Tory strategy is going to be to paint him as an EdM Mark 2 metropolitan lefty they are going to make life very easy for him as, unlike EdM, he is not a metropolitan lefty.
I'd trust hard-and-fast rules over 'principles' any day of the week.
But it's really not my area of expertise. I'm an engineer, and we tend to quite like rules. Well, except for dress code and hygiene ones. ;-)
Coulson deserves a break. He has been shat on from a great height.
Rules based compliance is fine in theory, but smart people can always come up with something that, prime facie, complies with the rules but is effectively an end run around them. If you set out general principles ("treat your customers fairly" "always behave with integrity") then you can slap people who step out of line.
I hope we hear from AC now about this witch hunt.
Suggest HH will not be following Ed's tactic of scweaming "Coulson" at PMQs..
“It’s the nature of the Cameron team. Quite simply, chaos is all they have ever known. They operate in a bubble in which it is at most 10 days planning or more usually 48 hours or 72 hours. There is no long-term priority. There is no long-term plan. The central people operate in that kind of culture. They don’t think anything can change. They just think that is politics. His most important advisers are Ed Llewellyn and Craig Oliver – both of them are totally and utterly useless. It is not their fault. They are just in the wrong job. The fault lies in Cameron putting them there.
“If you have a prime minister who has no sense of priorities and cannot manage his way out of a paper bag, and his two chief advisers who don’t know what they are doing with Craig Oliver running round with a ridiculous grid which is worrying about Twitter and the news cycle for the next three hours, of course it’s going to be a farce.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/cabinet-secretary-david-cameron-balls-dominic-cummings-jeremy-heywood
He has almost no real world work experience - having gone from working for Tessa Jowell to working for Chris Smith as a SpAd and then into Parliament.
He offers no real change - other than having done his degree at Cambridge rather than Oxford.
He hasn't got his hands dirty with real work in his life. He might work to retain his original accent - but he is still part of the political class that has come to dominate Labour politics in recent years.
He is part of the problem - not the solution. He is so closely allied to the past failings of Labour.
Its plain daft to continue the salary imbalances. But then again, gesture politics makes him an ideal choice for labour leader.
I
But choosing Kendall could cost Labour some of its core base, meaning it'd need to gain voters just to make up for the voters it loses. I think it's fair to say Kendall also wouldn't "appeal" to Scottish voters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32987365
If he In/Yes side are splintered, as seems likely (with these comments and the SNP apparently having their own In campaign) that presents a potential opportunity for Out, provided they're competent [a big if, I know]. They can pick and choose differing comments and go on the attack.
"The SNP say we should stay in because of X" could be directed at Conservative/WWC types who are unlikely to want to agree with X.
"David Cameron wants more competitiveness" could be directed at WWC and Labour types. And so on.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
"The SNP leader used a speech in Brussels to say a vote to take the UK out of the European Union could cause a "groundswell of anger" in Scotland."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
Quelle surprise.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/can-anyone-stop-tessa-jowell
QTWTAIZ?
And the whole uproar makes a mockery of the creation of an independent body to deal with the issue of MP pay and perks.
But as others have noted, taking an ill-thought-out short-term position is a key skill demonstrated by recent Labour leadership types.
He probably doesn't follow tim...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32962263
The BBC story was timestamped 10.43...thought I was being quick off the mark.
I forget that if there's a Breaking News story on BBC news, you can switch to Sky who have a reporter on the phone at the scene, And if the BBC have a reporter on the phone, SKY will have pictures...
But what is 'fairly' ? How do you define 'integrity' ?
I might say that ''treating your customers fairly' meant never making more than 5% profit a year out of each customer. You may say it meant explaining T&C's for them. A.n.other might say it meant ensuring their money was secure and safe.
I don't doubt your personal integrity - you behave utterly like a gentleman at all times. I have no doubt that you would interpret those phrases in a fair and equitable way. But others may not, especially if it is in their interests not to.
Perhaps those principles ought to be the bedrock on which the rules are made: the guiding principles. But the rules will be there to ensure they are kept to. And if smart people 'get around them' deliberately, then they should be fired. It's the old tax-avoidance-evasion issue once again, ;-)
But again, it really is not my area.
Far more likely to vote for Farron though.
But I again suggest that we should not worry too much, if we leave and join the EEA we can have pretty much the same EU relationship without the political closer union.
But one day people will wake up to the fact that the various anti EU factions will never be satisfied, and will always want to stop the world in order to get off.
Whether or not Coulson actually lied we cannot know (from this) of course, and I am not saying he did, but normally if someone is acquitted of perjury, it implies that they have been found to have told the truth all along.
As Charles alludes, it is a difference between the US and the UK - and in part I think it goes back to our original pan-national organisations - the military.
The US learned from Prussia, not us.
I worked in an American multinational, and the difference in reaction to pronouncements from on high between Brits and Americans was revealing.
If the boss said something, the American response would typically be 'yes sir!', the British would be effusively polite, quietly thinking 'what hole are we going to have to dig him out of now?'
Despite their 'classless' myth, I found Americans to be a lot more hierarchical than Brits.....
"The car was speeding, that may or may not be the case, but can you prove I was driving? No? OK - I am not guilty then"
I will leave it. It was put rather better in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826937/Ed-shadow-minister-plunges-dagger-Tristram-Hunt-joins-Labour-revolt-poll-says-Miliband-liability.html
If you have detailed rules then someone can work around them. There are literally thousands of people in the City whose job is to advise companies on how to maximise their interests while complying with precise rules. You don't want them playing that game with the market as well.
The most effective sanction in the City, for instance, is the 'cold shoulder'. It is very rarely used because it is so draconian: no regulated institution is permitted to work with the individuals who are subject to a cold-shoulder ruling. But that's a penalty that is applied by a non-statutory body.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f39028c-8f38-11df-a4de-00144feab49a.html
The spiteful bit was that it didn't take effect until April 2010...
twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/606042053475233792/photo/1
Is Coulson's acquittal a classic example of a "corner case"?
;-)
"consistently and vehemently denied perjury." Good for him, I just need to remember to phrase it as "lied under oath" at all times
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/7805707/Gordon-Brown-accepts-a-pay-cut-for-David-Cameron.html
http://viz.co.uk/roger-mellie-interviews-jeremy-hunt/
"Gutted that a good man, who fought for fairness in football has been forced from his job. Football will never find a more stalwart, honest champion than Sepp Blatter."