That reads like a company covering their backside over an over-zealous and abrasive manager, who having been told to rein it in a bit did so, so we’ll let this letter sit in her HR file for a couple of years in case something else comes up in the future. It doesn’t sound like gross misconduct or misleading someone, for which she could expect to be shown the door.
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
Can Mitt Romney remain in the Republican Party? Just doesn't seem viable given he is one of very few voices in GOP prepared to take on Trump's anti-democratic lunacy.
Rich enough to not care if he loses a primary or confident enough to overcome one, so no need to go anywhere I guess.
Romney is going nowhere.
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Its like whistleblowing - you will be punished for it (that they need policies around it proves the motivation will be to punish and a way found) so it's hard to be bold enough.
Just got a text from a pal of mine: “Have had a look at the new rules for travel to level 4. Quite straightforward really:
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2020 ... 2. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020() are amended in accordance with regulations 3 to 11. ... PART 4 Restrictions on movement ... 5(4) In schedule 5 (Level 4 restrictions), after paragraph 13, insert— "PART 4 "Restrictions on movement ... "16(1) For the purposes of this Part, examples of what constitutes a reasonable excuse (see regulation 5(4)) include leaving or remaining away from the area in which the person lives, or (as the case may be) entering or remaining in a Level 4 area that the person does not live in, for the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (2). "(2) The purposes are to— ... "(l) move home or undertake activities in connection with the maintenance, purchase, sale, letting, or rental of residential property that the person owns or is otherwise responsible for,"
So, in terms of regulation 16(2)(l) of The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (as amended by the The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2020), I have a reasonable excuse for travel to and from my late aunt's empty house in Glasgow ... I think “
These regulations were published yesterday and come into force at 6.00pm tonight. I am sure Police Scotland will be fully up to speed by then😀
His thinking is wrong unless it is specifically for the tasks mentioned, however I do wonder if your average plod could work it out.
In Scotland, except in the month of June most years, it is reasonable to check on empty property in case the pipes are freezing. That's maintenance.
Secondly, what is needed is a reasonable excuse. The list is not exhaustive, just exemplary.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. When you turn on your television tonight, imagine seeing the news acted rather than read. Someone looking like Boris Johnson furiously screaming at his fiancee, Carrie Symonds; Dominic Cummings vomiting into a can; and the Queen told to piss off. ...
The trend towards dramatising fictionalised accounts of recent events is incredibly corrosive. It needs to stop. We are entering TrumpWorld and the fact that our state broadcaster, with all its inherited prestige, is enabling it is truly awful.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
Can Mitt Romney remain in the Republican Party? Just doesn't seem viable given he is one of very few voices in GOP prepared to take on Trump's anti-democratic lunacy.
Rich enough to not care if he loses a primary or confident enough to overcome one, so no need to go anywhere I guess.
Romney is going nowhere.
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
Because the sane wing are going to be swamped and drowned by the insane wing.
Good call. An "Advisor on Ministerial Standards" is not required if there aren't any. Who wants to do a non-job even if it does pay well? Nobody worth their salt. It's bad for self-esteem.
Excellent. More public money saved from useless non-jobs.
Although he doesn't seem to have understood what the word 'advisor' means. Perhaps he thought he was the 'Dictator on Ministerial Standards'.
Advisers can think too much of themselves and overegg their power. But if they dont think their advice will be listened to or considered then they cannot advise properly so it's not impossible for to reasonably quit.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
I loved living in a country where you turn up, pat the dogs outside, queue nicely, remember your name and address for the person behind the trestle table, admire the infants' artwork or exhortations to love Jesus a bit more and didn't need to prove who you are and then vote with a pencil on the end of a piece of string. It lasted an amazingly long time.
Proving who you are is now routine. There is no special group that will be put off by it apart from ultra libertarians and ultra anarchists. These will cancel each other out and will damage Lord Buckethead mostly. As long as they don't ban tying your dog outside the polling station, taking a photo and putting it online....
See point 2 which contradicts your claim that requiring id doesn't affect some groups disproportionately. When you introduce measures that make it harder to vote that are disproportionate to the problem they are meant to fix and you know it affects some groups more than others then it is voter suppression.
Thanks, interesting point. However the report you link to merges Photo ID with ID. I agree that ID should be simple and certainly not required in photo form. But apart from a minute number of committed contrarians (over represented in social media perhaps) everyone has some form of simple ID.
Not necessarily. In the trial the report discusses, 2000 are turned away of whom 750 don't come back. Point of voter suppression isn't to stop everyone from voting, but to nudge the odds in your favour by making it harder for people to vote who are less likely to vote for your guy. It can matter a lot in a tight contest. With a lot of marginal constituencies and a close election it can make a big difference. Not everyone has id to hand. Not everyone has time to go home and get it. Not everyone is organised. Not everyone will vote if you start making it inconvenient. You can say "well that is their fault for being disorganised or not motivated enough", but the point is that everyone has the right to vote, not just organised and motivated people.
Happy to think you may be right. I like a country where you don't have to prove who you are. I think it may end up looking odd if you have to prove who you are for almost everything in the world except voting.
I think it just depends if there are problems if you don't require id. The reality is that impersonation is an almost non-existent problem. (There are problems with fraud but these tend to be associated with postal votes I believe). You don't need id for lots of things in life. As far as I know, everything that does require id is in response to a specific problem. Eg at immigration (illegal immigration), opening a bank account (fraud/terrorism financing), entering secure buildings (terrorism). If impersonation isn't a problem, then why require id, when you know that it will prevent some people from voting?
Whoops! California governor Gavin Newsom broke all his own rules on restaurant openings and gatherings - to celebrate the birthday of his lobbyist friend.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
No, I dont think so, not necessarily at any rate (seriousness of the behaviour and how its addressed would matter), but I was commenting on your flippant dismissal of the specific point that people didn't complain about being bullied as they were not 'bothered' in your view. I think that's an unfair way of putting it when it would be very risky to raise even mild concerns about someone so much more powerful.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Just got a text from a pal of mine: “Have had a look at the new rules for travel to level 4. Quite straightforward really:
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2020 ... 2. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020() are amended in accordance with regulations 3 to 11. ... PART 4 Restrictions on movement ... 5(4) In schedule 5 (Level 4 restrictions), after paragraph 13, insert— "PART 4 "Restrictions on movement ... "16(1) For the purposes of this Part, examples of what constitutes a reasonable excuse (see regulation 5(4)) include leaving or remaining away from the area in which the person lives, or (as the case may be) entering or remaining in a Level 4 area that the person does not live in, for the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (2). "(2) The purposes are to— ... "(l) move home or undertake activities in connection with the maintenance, purchase, sale, letting, or rental of residential property that the person owns or is otherwise responsible for,"
So, in terms of regulation 16(2)(l) of The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (as amended by the The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2020), I have a reasonable excuse for travel to and from my late aunt's empty house in Glasgow ... I think “
These regulations were published yesterday and come into force at 6.00pm tonight. I am sure Police Scotland will be fully up to speed by then😀
His thinking is wrong unless it is specifically for the tasks mentioned, however I do wonder if your average plod could work it out.
In Scotland, except in the month of June most years, it is reasonable to check on empty property in case the pipes are freezing. That's maintenance.
Secondly, what is needed is a reasonable excuse. The list is not exhaustive, just exemplary.
Did I not say that , also I will ignore your pathetic attempt at humour.
Can Mitt Romney remain in the Republican Party? Just doesn't seem viable given he is one of very few voices in GOP prepared to take on Trump's anti-democratic lunacy.
Rich enough to not care if he loses a primary or confident enough to overcome one, so no need to go anywhere I guess.
Romney is going nowhere.
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
Because the sane wing are going to be swamped and drowned by the insane wing.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
Can Mitt Romney remain in the Republican Party? Just doesn't seem viable given he is one of very few voices in GOP prepared to take on Trump's anti-democratic lunacy.
Rich enough to not care if he loses a primary or confident enough to overcome one, so no need to go anywhere I guess.
Romney is going nowhere.
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
Because the sane wing are going to be swamped and drowned by the insane wing.
But he wont. And if he is, he'll go out with his integrity rather than ceding the field as it were. Same reasoning some in labour took. Can be taken too far, but understandable.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Make sure the vast majority of the press is on your side, no matter what.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
Good call. An "Advisor on Ministerial Standards" is not required if there aren't any. Who wants to do a non-job even if it does pay well? Nobody worth their salt. It's bad for self-esteem.
Excellent. More public money saved from useless non-jobs.
Although he doesn't seem to have understood what the word 'advisor' means. Perhaps he thought he was the 'Dictator on Ministerial Standards'.
I suppose he's deduced that the only metric that counts for ministerial behaviour is the degree of personal loyalty to Boris Johnson. So long as this remains above the level that qualifies as "supine" the minister flourishes. Unless he or she is disrespectful to his girlfriend of course. That's a career killer.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
No, I dont think so, not necessarily at any rate (seriousness of the behaviour and how its addressed would matter), but I was commenting on your flippant dismissal of the specific point that people didn't complain about being bullied as they were not 'bothered' in your view. I think that's an unfair way of putting it when it would be very risky to raise even mild concerns about someone so much more powerful.
I'm saying if people have concerns they should be raised and addressed in the first instance. Concerns were raised (eventually) and were addressed satisfactorily apparently as soon as they were raised according to the independent investigator. That is good enough for me.
The issue with Labour Antisemitism was that it was endemic and ongoing even after complaints were raised. That complaints were raised and nothing was done about it and that the complainants were themselves bullied and threatened with legal action was absolutely awful. This is completely different, there was an issue - it was complained about and addressed: job done, move on.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
No, I dont think so, not necessarily at any rate (seriousness of the behaviour and how its addressed would matter), but I was commenting on your flippant dismissal of the specific point that people didn't complain about being bullied as they were not 'bothered' in your view. I think that's an unfair way of putting it when it would be very risky to raise even mild concerns about someone so much more powerful.
I'm saying if people have concerns they should be raised and addressed in the first instance. Concerns were raised (eventually) and were addressed satisfactorily apparently as soon as they were raised according to the independent investigator. That is good enough for me.
The issue with Labour Antisemitism was that it was endemic and ongoing even after complaints were raised. That complaints were raised and nothing was done about it and the complainers were themselves bullied was awful. This is completely different, there was an issue - it was complained about and addressed: job done, move on.
So if someone doesn’t make an official complaint it’s okay for bullying to continue until they do?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Even without the gerrymandering you'd only need 40%, a fairly audacious gerrymander could easily get that down to say 28%. I think Britain easily has 28% who would support a right-wing authoritarian, and the fact that the outrageous gerrymander was an outrageous gerrymander would be denied by much of the press, and both-sides-ed by the broadcasters.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
In Spain you cannot vote without your ID - even in local elections!
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
How? UK electoral system is not run by political appointees, the votes are done and dusted within 24 in almost all cases, there is no running total given of individual counts, the counting is all manual...
I think there have been two MPs that I can remember who had the initial results overthrown: the infamous Winchester incident in 1997 (where the electorate was singularly unimpressed and turned a wafer thin majority into a huge one), and the one where the Labour candidate was convicted of lying about his opponent.
Once the returning officer has pronounced the result it is essentially impossible to get it changed.
Edit to add: and it’s not like our Supreme Court has shown itself to be a lapdog of the government.
Given planning (I know, I know) how about:
1) Pack the Lords on some other pretext (Brexit or whatever) 2) Change law about boundaries are done, pass it through the Commons with your parliamentary majority and House of Lords with your minions 3) Vote through gerrymandered boundaries on a simple majority 4) There is no (4), the British system has basically no checks or balances that could defeat a determined PM with a majority who didn't give a shit what you thought about him
There is a 4) British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
Make sure the vast majority of the press is on your side, no matter what.
Which democracy in the world would be immune from attack if the demos consistently voted for its own abolition by giving a majority to tyrants? I suspect we are better placed than many in that unlikely scenario. The Crown, the Armed Forces and the Courts would still be in play if nothing else.
A sports psychologist might point out that under pressure people dont hear the word no when getting instructions, so would actually hear there must be bullying and harassment, leaking and misuse of taxpayer funds......
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
Sorry, but LOL. Another evil Tory plot magicked up out of thin air.
Countries in Europe requiring ID to be presented when voting:
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. For a start, and that's just the Wikipedia list.
They are very well connected, those Tories - to be manipulating all those voting systems.
Funny how I have never been asked for ID when voting in Germany, nor seen or heard of anyone else being asked for it.
Carrying ID is compulsory in Germany, but people aren't usually asked for it at polling stations unless they don't bring the polling card that is automatically posted to you before the election.
Carrying ID is also compulsory in several of the other countries you list. So to be like them the UK would first have to issue photo ID to everyone in the country.
Anyway, I would be more worried about why turnout in the UK is worse than most countries in Europe.
There doesn't seem to be much difference in general Election turnout afaics. Most seem to be around 70-80%.
Can Mitt Romney remain in the Republican Party? Just doesn't seem viable given he is one of very few voices in GOP prepared to take on Trump's anti-democratic lunacy.
Rich enough to not care if he loses a primary or confident enough to overcome one, so no need to go anywhere I guess.
Romney is going nowhere.
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
He’s going to be in a strong position as one of the few Republicans to come out of this with honour intact. That is once the party has recovered from this madness, which I believe in time it will.
Great result! Anyone know what were the local factors at play here?
It is a rich Tory area
Richer and more Tory than it was all too recently, apparently. Alternatively the collapse of SLAB continues.
SLAB are almost done David, hard to see them making any revival unless they get rid of Leonard , do 180 degree turn and support independence. They will soon be scrapping with Lib Dems as to who is most irrelevant.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
If she was bullying and abusive as well?
"felt as bullying" by people who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied?
Poor snowflakes.
It takes a braver person than me to complain about being bullied, particularly when the strong impression is the person doing the bullying will not face consequence. That's why senior people need to say when they've been bullied to show everyone it wint be tolerated.
Except the report states that since concerns were raised they've been addressed, that's why people have policies to raise concerns.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
No, I dont think so, not necessarily at any rate (seriousness of the behaviour and how its addressed would matter), but I was commenting on your flippant dismissal of the specific point that people didn't complain about being bullied as they were not 'bothered' in your view. I think that's an unfair way of putting it when it would be very risky to raise even mild concerns about someone so much more powerful.
I'm saying if people have concerns they should be raised and addressed in the first instance. Concerns were raised (eventually) and were addressed satisfactorily apparently as soon as they were raised according to the independent investigator. That is good enough for me. .
You seem to have no regard to how in practical terms it will not be easy to make a complaint particularly if the culture expects you to just accept it.
Regardless, whether they could have been braver doesn't invalidate their feelings and concerns now identified as you have sought to do. That's one benefit of investigations as they may reveal wider issues while looking into a specific incident or person. You cannot just dismiss concerns identified as snowflakery because you dont like that they didn't come forward sooner.
Your attitude is shining through with the snowflake remark, that you would dismiss the concerns based on the timidity of those affected and makes your satisfaction of a sound resolution appear rather hollow given that attempt to belittle concerns based on triviality.
Chicken and egg; if you're rude to people, then do you expect them to go the extra mile?
If a female, BAME Labour SoS was being poorly served by her officials would she be getting victim blamed for it?
Female and BAME has nothing to do with it. Being brown skinned and a woman doesn't get you a free pass to behave unprofessionally in a top job.
And you can't offer up hypothetical future double standards in others in order to justify your own actual double standards in the here and now. That doesn't work at all.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Oh dear, sorry to hear this. Any chance of a 2nd test to confirm?
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
A question regrding Biden's possible cabinet picks. Quite a few potential names (Warren, Sanders, Tuckworth etc.) are sitting Senators. Given the likely tightness of the Senate, is Biden going to want to lose these Dem supporting Senators and risk Governors picks, special elections and the like?
(Actually, he should appoint some Rep Senators from states where a Democratic Governor has the pick!)
For your latter point, we could see the spectacle of GOP senators voting against confirming GOP senators to the cabinet.
Would any such Republican Senators even be tempted? It'd be the end of their Senate career and Biden is only likely to serve one term.
Collins seems the most logical pick but she's just won another six year Senate term with the potential of running again in six years. Why trade that in now for four years in Biden's cabinet?
I doubt she'd want a dull, stressful management job but if it was something mildly glorious like Ambassador to the United Nations then it seems like an interesting career move, doesn't it? No disrespect to the office of Senator to the state of Maine, but if you're like 67 years old and you've done that job for a bit why not make a move?
Did I read that Obama might become US Ambassador in London?
Obama as ambassador seems unlikely. As a former president, he retains full Secret Service protection, and the British government would never allow dozens of armed American guards in London closing roads whenever the ambassador fancied a picnic with the girls.
Which poor bastards in the service will be stuck on Trump duty?
Trump protection duty will be a prime posting: staying in luxury apartments and resorts with Uncle Sam paying the rent to the landlord, one D J Trump Inc.
So what's the supposedly sackable offence that everyone is going on about?
Uh, breach of the Ministerial Code?
Since when is treating people with consideration and respect a "high standard" for any manager, let alone one of our most senior ministers. Its a bleeding obvious basic requirement.
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
Hilarious. Really quite hilarious.
Its not a laughing matter, that's what procedures are for.
People don't have a TARDIS, if a complaint is never raised then there's obviously no way to address it prior to it being raised. Except for gross misconduct issue dismissal should only occur for those who refuse to address the issue after receiving a warning and failing to change behaviour after the warning.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Best wishes for an asymptomatic progression! Mrs Foxy was working with COVID patients, wasn't she?
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Good luck to you both. I hope you are suitably stocked up!
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
But you are seeking to belittle those who were identified as suffering through the investigation. That they didn't complain is irrelevant as in investigating a complaint the wider situation emerges.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
And if complaints procedures aren't worth a damn people will be reluctant to use them. Particularly with a career on the line, and the responses on here show they would be - snowflakes and losers apparently, I'm sure they'll be treated fairly if people on Gov think that too.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Entirely reasonable except to partisan hacks like @Gallowgate looking to score points.
Bullying is ok if you didn’t foresee the impact of your bullying?
Come on now. That is nonsense.
If there's no complaints?
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
But you are seeking to belittle those who were identified as suffering through the investigation. That they didn't complain is irrelevant as in investigating a complaint the wider situation emerges.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
No I'm not, I've no problem or belittlement for those who followed procedure.
My "snowflakes" remark was explicitly for those "who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied".
Whatever the circumstances, not treating your staff with consideration and respect is unacceptable, in whatever industry you work in.
Defending such actions is just despicable.
I don't think its being "ignored" - I think its being placed in "context" namely:
- Senior staff (who should expect robust feedback) were not supportive - Patel was not given feedback that her robust feedback was perceived as bullying - When Patel was given feedback that her behaviour was seen as bullying, she changed her behaviour.
Can any of the above be said of, oh, I dunno, Bercow?
People make mistakes. The issue is whether they learn from them.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Well, that was an eventful morning. Informed at 1030 that Mrs Foxy has tested positive for Covid-19, so am back home for 14 days. Caused chaos with next weeks rota. Both of us well so feeling a bit of a fraud.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Best wishes for an asymptomatic progression! Mrs Foxy was working with COVID patients, wasn't she?
Yes, but what triggered her test was the positive test of someone she works closely with. She just thought she had picked up an ordinary cold, but advised to have a test. Fairly good turnaround. 40 hours from swab to text result.
Both fine at the moment, sats good on pulse oximetry.
In Michigan if any members of the state canvass board refuse to certify the results the governor can fire them and appoint someone else . Once the results are certified by the SOS these go to the governor who then confirms the state electors for Biden . Both the governor and SOS are Dems . If the state legislators tried to sent a different slate of electors the governors take precedence .
The fact some GOP members are entertaining effectively overturning the results in certain swing states highlights what utter scum they are . Trump isn’t even hiding his attempts to stage a coup . It won’t work but he is operating a scorched earth policy on democracy .
Biden’s attempts at reaching across aisle are living in la la land . He’s living in a different world where that was possible , America is beyond any chance of recovering from 4 years of Trump . Whatever problems we may have in Europe we are still able to disagree politically , and can still have friendships with those on opposing political sides .
That ships sailed in the USA .
Johnson will 100% do a replay of the Trump legal shenanigans at the next GE. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves about what he is.
Nonsensical.
Johnson is nothing like Trump and the UK is nothing like the USA.
If the election had happened in this country instead of the USA then Biden would have kissed the Queen's hand the day after the election.
I dunno, the Tories are already going down the voter suppression route by pushing for ID requirements at polling stations, ostensibly to deal with the more or less non-existent problem of impersonation but with the effect of disenfranchising the kind of people who don't vote Tory. (there may be some voting fraud in the UK, but impersonation isn't a problem). The main advantages we have over the US is that our voting system is much simpler and there is an immediate transfer of power so no time to plan a coup. I would file this under the category of unlikely, but wouldn't totally put it past him.
I loved living in a country where you turn up, pat the dogs outside, queue nicely, remember your name and address for the person behind the trestle table, admire the infants' artwork or exhortations to love Jesus a bit more and didn't need to prove who you are and then vote with a pencil on the end of a piece of string. It lasted an amazingly long time.
Proving who you are is now routine. There is no special group that will be put off by it apart from ultra libertarians and ultra anarchists. These will cancel each other out and will damage Lord Buckethead mostly. As long as they don't ban tying your dog outside the polling station, taking a photo and putting it online....
See point 2 which contradicts your claim that requiring id doesn't affect some groups disproportionately. When you introduce measures that make it harder to vote that are disproportionate to the problem they are meant to fix and you know it affects some groups more than others then it is voter suppression.
Thanks, interesting point. However the report you link to merges Photo ID with ID. I agree that ID should be simple and certainly not required in photo form. But apart from a minute number of committed contrarians (over represented in social media perhaps) everyone has some form of simple ID.
Not necessarily. In the trial the report discusses, 2000 are turned away of whom 750 don't come back. Point of voter suppression isn't to stop everyone from voting, but to nudge the odds in your favour by making it harder for people to vote who are less likely to vote for your guy. It can matter a lot in a tight contest. With a lot of marginal constituencies and a close election it can make a big difference. Not everyone has id to hand. Not everyone has time to go home and get it. Not everyone is organised. Not everyone will vote if you start making it inconvenient. You can say "well that is their fault for being disorganised or not motivated enough", but the point is that everyone has the right to vote, not just organised and motivated people.
Why should I have to produce anything more than a poll card? (I agree, it would be a good idea to have to take that and if you vote in person you will get one.)
So, do people in all the other ~199 countries have to produce ID when voting on top of a polling card? AFAIK loads of 'common law' countries have no ID cards, nor do Iceland, Norway & Denmark.
Whatever the circumstances, not treating your staff with consideration and respect is unacceptable, in whatever industry you work in.
Defending such actions is just despicable.
I don't think its being "ignored" - I think its being placed in "context" namely:
- Senior staff (who should expect robust feedback) were not supportive - Patel was not given feedback that her robust feedback was perceived as bullying - When Patel was given feedback that her behaviour was seen as bullying, she changed her behaviour.
Can any of the above be said of, oh, I dunno, Bercow?
People make mistakes. The issue is whether they learn from them.
Precisely.
If someone is given feedback and adapts to it then job done, the process is working as intended.
If someone is given feedback and doesn't adapt to it then we have a problem and they may need to be managed out.
Patel has according to this investigation adapted as soon as she was given feedback. Job done.
The report reads like a minister getting more and more frustrated with the CS basically blocking any reforms or changes being made to their department and eventually just blasting everyone who got in the way because it's impossible to sack these incompetents.
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
So you’re justifying a manager taking her frustrations out on other people in the organisation? It’s okay to bully if you’re frustrated, is it?
No, she clearly bullied the roadblock out of the job. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I understand why given the circumstances. If I was faced with people like that in my company I'd pay them off and get rid of them, I don't think she had that option and it's basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority.
But you wouldn’t bully them, would you?
In her situation or mine?
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Sounds like you are/would be a terrible manager. If you have ineffective staff, you either pay them off or you deal with the resources you have available and make it work.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
If I have ineffective staff that refuse to "make it work" and the pay off isn't available and limited resources for new hires because of budget reasons. I'd manage them out of the job with performance targets and go through the process. I'm not sure that was available to her given the seniority of the people involved.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
Very well said. Managing people out is a tough job and sometimes an important skill. Its not easy or flippant to do.
Yes, but performance management is not bullying. Priti was found to have bullied.
Comments
Where is the Bercow report? That was much more concerning.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1329757339939909633?s=20
He has carved out the perfect niche as the low-tax, pro-business sane wing of the GOP. Given he is a standard-bearer for what the GOP used to stand for prior to the Trumptons, and commands a fair degree of support in the US public, why the hell would he walk away?
Its like whistleblowing - you will be punished for it (that they need policies around it proves the motivation will be to punish and a way found) so it's hard to be bold enough.
Secondly, what is needed is a reasonable excuse. The list is not exhaustive, just exemplary.
You really have gone full blue corbynite over this.
If you raise a concern, then it is addressed, then should the person who has addressed your concern still be fired?
Once again, the senior management of the CS just seems completely crap and full of incompetents promoted well above their capacity because they know the right people.
At least that’s @Philip_Thompson ’s argument.
You don't need id for lots of things in life. As far as I know, everything that does require id is in response to a specific problem. Eg at immigration (illegal immigration), opening a bank account (fraud/terrorism financing), entering secure buildings (terrorism). If impersonation isn't a problem, then why require id, when you know that it will prevent some people from voting?
https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-great-lockdown-hypocrites/
British electorate votes him out regardless.
One would hope.
At the end of the day, democracy requires an electorate who value it.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1329757429207273473?s=20
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1329751236074237952?s=20
Spot the effects of half term:
Come on now. That is nonsense.
And the only minister to commit that offence was Julian Smith when he was Northern Ireland Secretary.
The issue with Labour Antisemitism was that it was endemic and ongoing even after complaints were raised. That complaints were raised and nothing was done about it and that the complainants were themselves bullied and threatened with legal action was absolutely awful. This is completely different, there was an issue - it was complained about and addressed: job done, move on.
In mine I'd pay them off.
In hers I couldn't say, I'd push them to resign and push them very hard given that the pay off route isn't available. I don't know if that's bullying, I'd class it as tough management. This is also assuming that all avenues of getting people on board the new vision have been exhausted and these are the last few holdouts.
Yes.
That is what complaints procedures are for.
You don’t bully them until they have to resign.
Defending such actions is just despicable.
Might have time to work on a header or two...
Regardless, whether they could have been braver doesn't invalidate their feelings and concerns now identified as you have sought to do. That's one benefit of investigations as they may reveal wider issues while looking into a specific incident or person. You cannot just dismiss concerns identified as snowflakery because you dont like that they didn't come forward sooner.
Your attitude is shining through with the snowflake remark, that you would dismiss the concerns based on the timidity of those affected and makes your satisfaction of a sound resolution appear rather hollow given that attempt to belittle concerns based on triviality.
And you can't offer up hypothetical future double standards in others in order to justify your own actual double standards in the here and now. That doesn't work at all.
Like I said yesterday. The muzzle awaits.
You've clearly never managed people and never had to deal with those who refuse to get on board with a new vision. I came into my job with entrenched management, winning people over is always the first step. Making do with incompetent workers is never in the interests of the team or the business because it causes resentment among those who do perform well. Getting rid of them is the main priority, I've managed people out of the company and paid them off. Is it bullying to ask them to perform to a minimum level and have weekly performance meetings, or setting performance targets? I'm not sure, but management need effective methods of moving people on.
People don't have a TARDIS, if a complaint is never raised then there's obviously no way to address it prior to it being raised. Except for gross misconduct issue dismissal should only occur for those who refuse to address the issue after receiving a warning and failing to change behaviour after the warning.
Yes, if no one complained there would be a problem, but that's not what happened so theres no call to belittle and demean them.
And if complaints procedures aren't worth a damn people will be reluctant to use them. Particularly with a career on the line, and the responses on here show they would be - snowflakes and losers apparently, I'm sure they'll be treated fairly if people on Gov think that too.
My "snowflakes" remark was explicitly for those "who never bothered to complain that they felt they were bullied".
- Senior staff (who should expect robust feedback) were not supportive
- Patel was not given feedback that her robust feedback was perceived as bullying
- When Patel was given feedback that her behaviour was seen as bullying, she changed her behaviour.
Can any of the above be said of, oh, I dunno, Bercow?
People make mistakes. The issue is whether they learn from them.
Both fine at the moment, sats good on pulse oximetry.
So, do people in all the other ~199 countries have to produce ID when voting on top of a polling card? AFAIK loads of 'common law' countries have no ID cards, nor do Iceland, Norway & Denmark.
Too many have taken too easily to telling others what they can and can't do.
Patrick West"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/20/the-pandemic-has-empowered-the-petty/
If someone is given feedback and adapts to it then job done, the process is working as intended.
If someone is given feedback and doesn't adapt to it then we have a problem and they may need to be managed out.
Patel has according to this investigation adapted as soon as she was given feedback. Job done.