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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
We’re not talking about “hurting someone’s feelings”.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
With zero complaints?
B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.
Name a single person in politics sacked for this with zero complaints previously? What happened with Bercow who had complaints about this exact same issue for years. Hypocrite!
Lol.
Which part of “[m]y advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect” do you not understand?
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
In other ONS news, the number of infections in previous weeks has decreased slightly. This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
Amending the projection to take into account the latest ONS infections data and using the updated effective IFR (and using the existing decrease in the most recent days, which equates to a hair over R=0.9) this projects:
As before: yellow bars are projected deaths from the effective IFR; blue bars are projected deaths from the average death rate of hospitalised people in England, extrapolated over the country; and red bars are actual UK deaths to date (I don't go any more up to date than today minus one week; even so, the last three days on the chart usually go up noticeably over time)
And if anyone thinks, looking at that, we're going to be let out again on December 2nd then they are heading for something of a disappointment. When lockdown is meant to end, it will be succeeded by either (a) more lockdown or (b) something that looks very much like lockdown, but has been tweaked around the edges so the Government can pretend it's something else. They might just let the shops try to rescue something from pre-Christmas trade, but the hospitality businesses might as well declare bankruptcy and get it over with.
Calendar for the next four-and-a-half months: now-Christmas Eve: lockdown. Christmas Day and Boxing Day: small family gatherings, if we've all been really, really good. December 27th-April 1st next year: lockdown.
The Easter long weekend starts on April 2nd, so that's the earliest date for some meaningful form of release. If the weather is shit, or if it's good but the scientists collectively throw their toys out of the pram at the prospect of anything other than lockdown continuing, like they are at the moment, then we may be waiting until all the shielders and everybody over 50 has been vaccinated.
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
Pleasure Nick trust me I usually don't understand romcoms let alone anything more complex.
And they did of course show the Catholic Church (or an offshoot of it) in redemption at the end with her idyllic, not to say palatial home for single mothers in France which I think was a religious order.
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%.
except the UK which has this century been been 59%-69%.
Compared to our biggest neighbours:
France 75-84 (presidential) Germany 71-79 Italy 73-84
FPTP. So many people are voting in safe seats with next to zero chance of change and very little incentive to vote.
UK GE turnout was 70-80% until it slumped to 59% in 2001. There was about as many safe seats in the 80s and 90s as there are today.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
She didn't break the Ministerial Code, that was the judgement of the Prime Minister and I agree with him. There were no complaints at the time and after getting complaints she has addressed it and made amends.
Are you telling me that you, Gallowgate, have never in your life ever unintentionally hurt anyone else's feelings? And would you be happy to be fired from your job - without warning or an opportunity for redress - if you were sacked with zero warning and zero opportunities to address the issue?
Any why did this standard not exist for Bercow?
We’re not talking about “hurting someone’s feelings”.
We’re talking about bullying, which the independent report said Priti’s behaviour amounted to.
Therefore she broke the Ministerial Code. Just because Boris Johnson is as much as a hypocrite as you that doesn’t change anything.
Have we seen the independent report into Bercow’s behaviour?
With zero complaints?
B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.
Name a single person in politics sacked for this with zero complaints previously? What happened with Bercow who had complaints about this exact same issue for years. Hypocrite!
Lol.
Which part of “[m]y advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect” do you not understand?
"Advisers advise, ministers decide"
You might need to see a chiropractor after all this twisting.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
Having been in a job where many of the most talented people left (including me) because the CEO would bully anyone whose engineering opinion he disagreed with this all looks very familiar. Disastrous drops in performance across the business, resignations, bullying claims through ACAS, cronies saying “oh they’re not bullying just managing performance” and the board refusing to act because he was charming to those who didn’t work for him. Just repellant that anyone defends these people.
Thanks for all the best wishes, but I am fine. All the usual aches and pains, and slight headache take on new significance when a household member has it. I am isolating as a household contact.
It is a fairly common thread to many medical scandals that a culture of bullying was a major part of the underlying causation. Organisations run by fear and coercion are rarely very good at serving their customers either.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
You know you’ve won when the opposition starts bringing race and sex into the matter.
In other ONS news, the number of infections in previous weeks has decreased slightly. This means the apparent IFR has gone up again (as deaths have not decreased), to about 1%.
I will note that this is for infections in the community ONLY. As we know about one in six infections occur in hospitals, that implies a true IFR of around 0.8%.
Amending the projection to take into account the latest ONS infections data and using the updated effective IFR (and using the existing decrease in the most recent days, which equates to a hair over R=0.9) this projects:
As before: yellow bars are projected deaths from the effective IFR; blue bars are projected deaths from the average death rate of hospitalised people in England, extrapolated over the country; and red bars are actual UK deaths to date (I don't go any more up to date than today minus one week; even so, the last three days on the chart usually go up noticeably over time)
And if anyone thinks, looking at that, we're going to be let out again on December 2nd then they are heading for something of a disappointment. When lockdown is meant to end, it will be succeeded by either (a) more lockdown or (b) something that looks very much like lockdown, but has been tweaked around the edges so the Government can pretend it's something else. They might just let the shops try to rescue something from pre-Christmas trade, but the hospitality businesses might as well declare bankruptcy and get it over with.
Calendar for the next four-and-a-half months: now-Christmas Eve: lockdown. Christmas Day and Boxing Day: small family gatherings, if we've all been really, really good. December 27th-April 1st next year: lockdown.
The Easter long weekend starts on April 2nd, so that's the earliest date for some meaningful form of release. If the weather is shit, or if it's good but the scientists collectively throw their toys out of the pram at the prospect of anything other than lockdown continuing, like they are at the moment, then we may be waiting until all the shielders and everybody over 50 has been vaccinated.
When queried about something or other Covid-related SKS said "even one death is too much".
Now, that might have been political rhetoric for the purposes of the interview (LBC I think), but that seems to be informing govt policy - one death is too much.
Now of course that one death is a tragedy for the people and family concerned but I'm not sure it's sustainable to run a country like that.
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.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Not at all. The Bercow allegations were from junior members of staff, and were accompanied by a huge amount of support for the Speaker by partisan Remainers who in every other circumstance would have been on the side of the accusers.
Patel simply fell out with a bunch of obstructive senior CS types who didn’t want to be part of her program for the department. As others have said, in corporate world you manage these people out - I’ve personally been on both sides of that managing out, it’s just how the world works.
But we only have a report on Patel, I thought. Sorry if I've got that wrong and you've got the facts on his case too. It's very possible I missed it.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
You know you’ve won when the opposition starts bringing race and sex into the matter.
Nice try though.
OK take race and gender of the equation - which was worse: Ongoing complaints, not addressed, no change in behaviour, refused to have or co-operate with an inquiry (Bercow) - or no prior complaints raised, behaviour changed after a complaint was raised, co-operated with an inquiry that found no ongoing concerns (Patel)?
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...
Staying at home when a partner is positive is not being a fraud. Going to work in a hospital when a partner is positive, now that would be being 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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Why do you keep using the word partisan in connection with Bercow? David Cameron hated Bercow with a rare passion but do not be misled into thinking this means Bercow used to sit between Corbyn and Skinner. Prior to his election as Speaker, Bercow was a right-wing Conservative MP.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
You know you’ve won when the opposition starts bringing race and sex into the matter.
Nice try though.
OK take race and gender of the equation - which was worse: Ongoing complaints, not addressed, no change in behaviour, refused to have or co-operate with an inquiry (Bercow) - or no prior complaints raised, behaviour changed after a complaint was raised, co-operated with an inquiry that found no ongoing concerns (Patel)?
Which was worse for "bullying" - Bercow or Patel?
I’m not interested in having a discussion about “what is worse”. We’re discussing one breach of the Ministerial Code, and that’s it.
She breached it, she should have been sacked.
Yet another constitutional norm Boris Johnson has ignored.
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.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Not at all. The Bercow allegations were from junior members of staff, and were accompanied by a huge amount of support for the Speaker by partisan Remainers who in every other circumstance would have been on the side of the accusers.
Patel simply fell out with a bunch of obstructive senior CS types who didn’t want to be part of her program for the department. As others have said, in corporate world you manage these people out - I’ve personally been on both sides of that managing out, it’s just how the world works.
But we only have a report on Patel, I thought. Sorry if I've got that wrong and you've got the facts on his case too. It's very possible I missed it.
Apparently bullying is OK if you are part of the Leave club, but then I guess it goes with the general divisive macho nationalistic mentality.
Many thanks to Topping and OnlyLivingBoy on the last thread for unravelling the DNA story. I get it now - maybe I missed a "5 years earlier" caption in episode 2, or as OLB suggests the Danes are just better than me (but not better than you two) at working these things out!
I would think it probably did get shown on a Polish channel too - the Westernised minority in the big cities are very sceptical about Catholic domination and would be definitely up for that sort of expose. For all the faults of the Polish Government, I don't think they actually censor TV (yet), though I may be wrong.
It was a very good drama imo. Clever plot twist. Well acted. An emotional punch. Definitely a cut above.
I was a mess at the end.
Yes I keep thinking about it. I hope I'd do the same.
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.
You read the Patel report and conclude that her bullying was not too serious. Fair enough. That's a defensible interpretation. But then you state that Bercow's bullying "was much more concerning" despite having not seen a report on that. This does not scan and is a tell of deep partisan Tory and Leaver bias.
Not at all. The Bercow allegations were from junior members of staff, and were accompanied by a huge amount of support for the Speaker by partisan Remainers who in every other circumstance would have been on the side of the accusers.
Patel simply fell out with a bunch of obstructive senior CS types who didn’t want to be part of her program for the department. As others have said, in corporate world you manage these people out - I’ve personally been on both sides of that managing out, it’s just how the world works.
But we only have a report on Patel, I thought. Sorry if I've got that wrong and you've got the facts on his case too. It's very possible I missed it.
Apparently bullying is OK if you are part of the Leave club, but then I guess it goes with the general divisive macho nationalistic mentality.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
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.
That depends how consistently, but for instance Japan has a strong written constitution with an independently elected, non-partisan supreme court with long terms. It would be way harder to bring off an autogolpe than the UK where the only real check on a PM with a parliamentary majority for even a single term is the Queen, who as we saw with the prorogation will merrily sign off on whatever the PM puts in front of her.
The US has far stronger safeguards against this than the UK. But the Democrats need to wise up and it starts with redistricting VA, NY and CA as an aggresive gerrymander to maximise house seats. Control of the House is, in extremis, the single biggest check on a presidential coup. https://leantossup.ca/53-0-or-bust-starts-now/
Surely we and the USA co-wrote Japan's post-war constitution in the light of all the naughty things they did before 1945? (well the USSR, China and France might have also had some say.)
Western democracies including us also wrote W. Germany's federal constitution ... but the UK didn't adopt it, i.e. complete with devolution, states' rights, two chambers elected at different times, PR, independent courts .... (The USA already had these.)
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
You know you’ve won when the opposition starts bringing race and sex into the matter.
Nice try though.
Haha, it is an odd example of a far right winger trying desperately to be woke, so that he perhaps doesn't look quite so repulsively far right wing. I'd be all in favour of having a woman Home Secretary who is of Asian origin if she was good. The fact is that not only is she a proven bully but also a pretty shitty HS and a lightweight to boot.
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%.
except the UK which has this century been been 59%-69%.
Compared to our biggest neighbours:
France 75-84 (presidential) Germany 71-79 Italy 73-84
FPTP. So many people are voting in safe seats with next to zero chance of change and very little incentive to vote.
UK GE turnout was 70-80% until it slumped to 59% in 2001. There was about as many safe seats in the 80s and 90s as there are today.
2001 was the most boring election ever, Tories still a shambles and Blair had the entire centre ground to himself. Not that there was much particular worry if Hague somehow got in, but everyone knew the result was a foregone conclusion anyway. Perfect recipe for low turnout.
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.
That is a theory, which I guess is possible.
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Then on Monday, PA and MI get the cert - triggering settlement of those 2 states and also (finally!) of the outright winner market since Biden will then have over 270 projected EC votes from states that have been settled.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Is that why Mrs May sacked her twice for dishonesty. She was being a snob?
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.
That is a theory, which I guess is possible.
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Is that why Mrs May sacked her twice for dishonesty. She was being a snob?
Mrs May was the one who deserved the sack. Thank goodness she got it eventually.
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.
That is a theory, which I guess is possible.
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
Have you any reason for thinking her particularly competent ?
Not competent, I just sympathise with the situation, working class person taking over a department of old white elistist men. It's a very tough situation to be in, I've lived through it for the last few years as my career in finance has advanced to senior management.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
Bercow is rightly gone - and while I'd agree that the House ought to have sacked him sooner, this smacks of whataboutery.
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?
Yes.
That's madness.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be fired without warning for a concern that was never brought to your attention. 🙄
If you don’t realise you’re bullying people then maybe you shouldn’t be in a management position.
Your position is laughable Philip.
One person's bullying is another person's high standards.
That's why procedures exist. 🙄
No, it isn’t. Priti’s behaviour in this instance has been found, by way of independent report, to constitute bullying.
You are trying to argue that sacking her for this would be outside the norm but this couldn’t be further from the truth. We know that this is the first time someone has NOT been fired for breaking the ministerial code.
Like I said, your position is laughable. You are in full partisan hack mode today. It’s very unedifying.
There were no complaints and the issue has been addressed. It would be ludicrous to sack her and it would set a very dangerous precedent to do so.
The next time Sir Humphrey has a Minister setting policies and standards he doesn't like then should he be able to subvert them and claim "bullying" without raising any concerns and thus get the Minister sacked?
Don't be ridiculous.
More complete tosh.
The precedent is already set. The precedent is that she should be sacked.
For having had zero complaints?
Bullshit.
Please name one previous Minister sacked for this without having any concerns raised?
Perhaps compare with the precedence set with Bercow.
You keep talking about complaints but that is not the issue here. You’re twisting and twisting again.
It’s really quite simple. She broke the ministerial code and therefore precedent is that she should be sacked.
That’s it.
She did not break the ministerial code.
That’s not what the independent report says, but of course you know better.
No, the PM knows better and its for him to determine if she broke the ministerial code and he determined she didn't. And I agree with him. It is a pathetic witch hunt by hypocrites who were OK with a blind eye being turned for Bercow for years who wasn't changing his behaviour but want to hound a woman out of her job who has no ongoing complaints and no ongoing evidence of wrongdoing.
Misogynistic and racist hypocrisy. Or partisan hypocrisy. Which is it?
Hahaha. The PM is the holy arbiter of what is right and wrong.
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Bercow never addressed the bullying complaints and stayed in office for years with ongoing complaints never investigated and never held to account.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
Bercow is rightly gone - and while I'd agree that the House ought to have sacked him sooner, this smacks of whataboutery.
What goes around comes around. 🤷🏻♂️
That's the precedence for bullying allegations. Patel's been treated much harsher than Bercow ever was and quite right too. Those who want even more are just vindictive.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Is that why Mrs May sacked her twice for dishonesty. She was being a snob?
I can't remember the details of the other one but definitely agree with the sacking over the Israel stuff. However, you're not addressing the point, I guess as one of those elitist old white men you feel threatened as well. 🤷♂️
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
I suspect there is a lot of truth in this, to be honest. Of course Tories generally like to tell us that white privilege and white fragility don't exist, as part of their boring "war on woke", otherwise they'd no doubt be raising this defence more forcefully.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Is that why Mrs May sacked her twice for dishonesty. She was being a snob?
Mrs May was the one who deserved the sack. Thank goodness she got it eventually.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
That's a remarkably high number of stereotypes in two short paragraphs.
I don't think you really have a clue about today's Civil Service. It's simply not as you describe.
Apart from her bullying, the problem with Patel is that she is intellectually challenged and ineffective (e.g. her lack of progress on Channel crossings). It wouldn't surprise me much at all if she struggled to earn the respect of her civil servants, and then lashed out.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
Remember a time not so long ago when things like "breaches of the ministerial code" actually meant something? When simply claims that somebody was doing a good job or being a close ally and friend of the Prime Minister wasn't enough to save them. Peter Mandelson? David Blunkett?
These things didn't end their career. Many argued they were allowed to come back too soon. But the ministerial code at least meant something such that they had to step down once it was determined they were in breach.
I guess the issue is these days that if you look closely enough you will barely find a Cabinet Minister who isn't in breach somewhere. Up to and including the Prime Minister.
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.
That is a theory, which I guess is possible.
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
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.
The fact that Patel is still in post does indeed suggest that it is basically impossible to sack anyone in the public sector, especially at that level of seniority
For me, if she's done wrong, to the extent of breaching the code, she should go. If civil servants did wrong, as apparently suggested by the report, they (if any implicated are still in post) should go too.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Is that why Mrs May sacked her twice for dishonesty. She was being a snob?
Mrs May was the one who deserved the sack. Thank goodness she got it eventually.
Do you ever think before you post?
Yes. Mrs May was a catastrophic disaster of a PM. Good riddance to her.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
She shores up the flog 'em backwoods tendency. Who aren't entirely in tune with the Islington Set on much aside from Brexit.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
Mmm. The illiterate and innumerate woman who won a place at Cambridge as a non posh black girl from a state school back when that was almost unheard of. I guess her illiteracy and innumeracy explains why she receives almost one half of all online abuse sent to female MPs. It's all those highly literate and numerate members of the public who despite their best efforts at restraint just have to speak out when their own high standards of learning are not matched by those in public life.
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.
That depends how consistently, but for instance Japan has a strong written constitution with an independently elected, non-partisan supreme court with long terms. It would be way harder to bring off an autogolpe than the UK where the only real check on a PM with a parliamentary majority for even a single term is the Queen, who as we saw with the prorogation will merrily sign off on whatever the PM puts in front of her.
The US has far stronger safeguards against this than the UK. But the Democrats need to wise up and it starts with redistricting VA, NY and CA as an aggresive gerrymander to maximise house seats. Control of the House is, in extremis, the single biggest check on a presidential coup. https://leantossup.ca/53-0-or-bust-starts-now/
Yes, they keep passing anti-gerrymandering reforms. They should be passing counter-gerrymandering reforms, where if other states gerrymander, their states automatically also gerrymander in the opposite direction to restore balance.
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.
That is a theory, which I guess is possible.
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
Have you any reason for thinking her particularly competent ?
Not competent, I just sympathise with the situation, working class person taking over a department of old white elistist men. It's a very tough situation to be in, I've lived through it for the last few years as my career in finance has advanced to senior management.
As I said, I'm willing to admit the possibility. Given her track record to date, though, I have my doubts.
I note there's still an employment tribunal to be held (next September !) for Rutnam's claim against her.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
The inquiry wasn't tasked with looking at elitist culture at the Home Office and wider civil service. I know these types of people, they hate people like me with all their being. They see people like me as upstarts and a threat to their cosy chumocracy at the top of big business and government departments. You clearly don't understand what that feels like in the workplace but it is why I have got more sympathy for Patel than most.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
She's a Brexiteer
Which explains entirely why the entirety of the Remainiac brigade here want her sacked, and had no problem with Mandela Was A Terrorist But Bollocks To Brexit Bercow.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
Mmm. The illiterate and innumerate woman who won a place at Cambridge as a non posh black girl from a state school back when that was almost unheard of. I guess her illiteracy and innumeracy explains why she receives almost one half of all online abuse sent to female MPs. It's all those highly literate and numerate members of the public who despite their best efforts at restraint just have to speak out when their own high standards of learning are not matched by those in public life.
C'mon.
So 10,000 new Tory police officers will cost £30,000 a year, or is it £80m a year if we recruit 25,000 of them according to our plans?
Totally innumerate, and saying so is neither racist nor sexist.
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.
That depends how consistently, but for instance Japan has a strong written constitution with an independently elected, non-partisan supreme court with long terms. It would be way harder to bring off an autogolpe than the UK where the only real check on a PM with a parliamentary majority for even a single term is the Queen, who as we saw with the prorogation will merrily sign off on whatever the PM puts in front of her.
The US has far stronger safeguards against this than the UK. But the Democrats need to wise up and it starts with redistricting VA, NY and CA as an aggresive gerrymander to maximise house seats. Control of the House is, in extremis, the single biggest check on a presidential coup. https://leantossup.ca/53-0-or-bust-starts-now/
Surely we and the USA co-wrote Japan's post-war constitution in the light of all the naughty things they did before 1945? (well the USSR, China and France might have also had some say.)
Western democracies including us also wrote W. Germany's federal constitution ... but the UK didn't adopt it, i.e. complete with devolution, states' rights, two chambers elected at different times, PR, independent courts .... (The USA already had these.)
The W German constitution was very much based on the Weimar one, whereby the constitutional assembly tried to fix the problems with that, so e.g. the President no longer has emergency powers, and the Chancellor can't be removed without agreeing on a new one. Obviously the allies instigated the process and signed off on the result, but it's going too far to say that they wrote it.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
She's a Brexiteer
Which explains entirely why the entirety of the Remainiac brigade here want her sacked, and had no problem with Mandela Was A Terrorist But Bollocks To Brexit Bercow.
Remember that school report of his that surfaced a while back?
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.
Truly, the child is the father to the man- though most of us manage to grow up at least a little bit.
I'd also like to make clear that I think Patel should be sacked on grounds of being crap rather than whatever happened with this. Unfortunately she's not up to the job like many other cabinet ministers and the PM.
Remember that school report of his that surfaced a while back?
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.
Truly, the child is the father to the man- though most of us manage to grow up at least a little bit.
We had a book club discussion last night on Mary Trump's book about Donald.
Great debate on the extent to which Donald's behaviour is caused by his father and his upbringing.
Plan to name the vaccine after Trump. What will that do for uptake? I may wish to take my chances rather than have a little bit of Donald in my arm. On the other hand, he is a prick.
What's striking to me is Johnson a) brought Patel back into govt and b) has shown loyalty to her c) she isn't one of his usual Oxbridge/connected gang.
Priti is a human shield. She wants out of the EU and the Cabinet is packed full of Leavers in case Boris needs to make a deal; in addition, Priti provides cover for Boris against those who accused him of racism. I do not think Boris is quite as hung up on the old school tie as David Cameron was, but that is a low bar.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
Mmm. The illiterate and innumerate woman who won a place at Cambridge as a non posh black girl from a state school back when that was almost unheard of. I guess her illiteracy and innumeracy explains why she receives almost one half of all online abuse sent to female MPs. It's all those highly literate and numerate members of the public who despite their best efforts at restraint just have to speak out when their own high standards of learning are not matched by those in public life.
C'mon.
So 10,000 new Tory police officers will cost £30,000 a year, or is it £80m a year if we recruit 25,000 of them according to our plans?
Totally innumerate, and saying so is neither racist nor sexist.
It triggered a pile of abuse - to add to the existing mountain of shit she gets as a matter of routine - when similar gaffes from others did not and do not. This is racist and sexist. It's absolutely undeniable.
It also gets raised again and again these days by people despite her no longer being prominent and it being quite some time ago. Those people are themselves almost certainly racist and sexist.
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
Mmm. The illiterate and innumerate woman who won a place at Cambridge as a non posh black girl from a state school back when that was almost unheard of. I guess her illiteracy and innumeracy explains why she receives almost one half of all online abuse sent to female MPs. It's all those highly literate and numerate members of the public who despite their best efforts at restraint just have to speak out when their own high standards of learning are not matched by those in public life.
C'mon.
So 10,000 new Tory police officers will cost £30,000 a year, or is it £80m a year if we recruit 25,000 of them according to our plans?
Totally innumerate, and saying so is neither racist nor sexist.
That old chestnut. Please see my reply.
And a follow up question - you also called her "illiterate".
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.
Exactly. Set out the performance expected and measure and manage against that.
"I clearly asked you to do this, you didn't do it and have no convincing reason why not: warning." Followed by final warning and dismissal. (Ideally interspersed with some coaching*, offering of alternative options such as stepping down a level, sideways move etc.)
*I admit the idea of an intellectual minnow like Patel coaching anyone might be a little far-fetched.
Absolutely, a three strike method is appropriate for all but the worst gross misconduct.
So Patel would now be on strike one stage and getting coaching by following your own stated procedure would she not? Or does she not get the same opportunities you demand for everyone else?
This is not Patel's first strike, though, is it?
Seems to be. And the investigation found that after getting the issue raised with her the issue was addressed. Job done, if the issue has been addressed and there's no ongoing bullying then what exactly is the problem?
She broke the Ministerial Code. Constitutional norms therefore dictate she should be sacked.
You are the world’s biggest hypocrite. You beat Trump with a stick for breaking constitutional norms and yet when your “team” does the exact same thing, you’ll twist and twist to justify it.
The Tory spinners are now saying that the reason people want her sacked is because of misogyny and because she's from an ethic minority! Not apparently because she's a proven liar and a bully. The fact that the most popular leaders in the world are women and the most popular leader for a considerable time was from what people call an ethic minority seems to have passed the Conservative Party by.
Because no-one from Labour has ever said said that critism of, for example, Diane Abbott, was racist and sexist, rather than because she was illiterate and innumerate.
Mmm. The illiterate and innumerate woman who won a place at Cambridge as a non posh black girl from a state school back when that was almost unheard of. I guess her illiteracy and innumeracy explains why she receives almost one half of all online abuse sent to female MPs. It's all those highly literate and numerate members of the public who despite their best efforts at restraint just have to speak out when their own high standards of learning are not matched by those in public life.
C'mon.
So 10,000 new Tory police officers will cost £30,000 a year, or is it £80m a year if we recruit 25,000 of them according to our plans?
Totally innumerate, and saying so is neither racist nor sexist.
It triggered a pile of abuse - to add to the existing mountain of shit she gets as a matter of routine - when similar gaffes from others did not and do not. This is racist and sexist. It's absolutely undeniable.
It also gets raised again and again these days by people despite her no longer being prominent and it being quite some time ago. Those people are themselves almost certainly racist and sexist.
Thatcher was even longer ago yet people like you still raise things she did. Abbot has a long history of brainfarts from racism to innumeracy so no surprise people bring her failings up
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
The inquiry wasn't tasked with looking at elitist culture at the Home Office and wider civil service. I know these types of people, they hate people like me with all their being. They see people like me as upstarts and a threat to their cosy chumocracy at the top of big business and government departments. You clearly don't understand what that feels like in the workplace but it is why I have got more sympathy for Patel than most.
The thing is you may even be right to some extent. Maybe she is deserving of some sympathy. But historically the point about the Ministerial Code is that it has been very zero tolerance. Quite rightly. And to some extent a zero tolerance approach has helped Prime Ministers, because it has given them a cover for what would otherwise be very difficult decisions.
Because once you start straying into the area of "justifiable" breaches then you can always find justification on some level. Or even without "justification" a reason to not sack a minister (perhaps because they are too important to lose etc). Ministers have enormous powers and limited direct scrutiny over what they do with them. They simply must be held to the highest standards or the whole system falls apart.
If punishment for breaches of the ministerial code simply become a judgement call to the PM, then all a minister has to do is make themselves appear indispensible and they become untouchable. Which is a very bad route to go down.
If a PM decides that they don't believe the code has been breached then fine, although they have to be able to explain why not. But once they are determined to be in breach, the consequences should be clear. However hard done by they feel.
Plan to name the vaccine after Trump. What will that do for uptake? I may wish to take my chances rather than have a little bit of Donald in my arm. On the other hand, he is a prick.
Who on earth is suggesting that?
I can't believe any pharmaceutical companies would be so preposterous.
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!
Aren't you obliged to always carry ID with you in Spain?
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
The inquiry wasn't tasked with looking at elitist culture at the Home Office and wider civil service. I know these types of people, they hate people like me with all their being. They see people like me as upstarts and a threat to their cosy chumocracy at the top of big business and government departments. You clearly don't understand what that feels like in the workplace but it is why I have got more sympathy for Patel than most.
The thing is you may even be right to some extent. Maybe she is deserving of some sympathy. But historically the point about the Ministerial Code is that it has been very zero tolerance. Quite rightly. And to some extent a zero tolerance approach has helped Prime Ministers, because it has given them a cover for what would otherwise be very difficult decisions.
Because once you start straying into the area of "justifiable" breaches then you can always find justification on some level. Or even without "justification" a reason to not sack a minister (perhaps because they are too important to lose etc). Ministers have enormous powers and limited direct scrutiny over what they do with them. They simply must be held to the highest standards or the whole system falls apart.
If punishment for breaches of the ministerial code simply become a judgement call to the PM, then all a minister has to do is make themselves appear indispensible and they become untouchable. Which is a very bad route to go down.
If a PM decides that they don't believe the code has been breached then fine, although they have to be able to explain why not. But once they are determined to be in breach, the consequences should be clear. However hard done by they feel.
Furthermore once a PM decides that they don't need to sack a minister for code breaches, what is the point of the code? Given that the PM can sack a minister for any reason they want? Why bother with an investigation, why bother with the code at all, if the outcome of any investigation is going to be irrelevant?
What happens if in future a minister acts dubiously and the PM actually wants to get rid of them. But wants the cover of a breach of the code to actually do it. Not possible any more - people will always be able to refer back and say "why does this breach warrant a sacking, when the previous one didn't?"
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
That's a remarkably high number of stereotypes in two short paragraphs.
I don't think you really have a clue about today's Civil Service. It's simply not as you describe.
Apart from her bullying, the problem with Patel is that she is intellectually challenged and ineffective (e.g. her lack of progress on Channel crossings). It wouldn't surprise me much at all if she struggled to earn the respect of her civil servants, and then lashed out.
A large part of the problem is that Ministers are expected to be capable managers, without any real training in management principles. Some come to it naturally, or bring experience from their previous jobs, but many do not.
I think I'd look at it from the opposite direction.
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
The inquiry didn't find that Patel was the victim, though. It found that she was the bully. That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
The inquiry wasn't tasked with looking at elitist culture at the Home Office and wider civil service. I know these types of people, they hate people like me with all their being. They see people like me as upstarts and a threat to their cosy chumocracy at the top of big business and government departments. You clearly don't understand what that feels like in the workplace but it is why I have got more sympathy for Patel than most.
You've had a certain negative experience You see someone as being in the same "group" as you in some way Therefore they've had the same negative experience That negative experience is also the reason for them being wrongly accused of wrongdoing
Comments
You are the partisan hack here. Do you have no shame?
Calendar for the next four-and-a-half months: now-Christmas Eve: lockdown. Christmas Day and Boxing Day: small family gatherings, if we've all been really, really good. December 27th-April 1st next year: lockdown.
The Easter long weekend starts on April 2nd, so that's the earliest date for some meaningful form of release. If the weather is shit, or if it's good but the scientists collectively throw their toys out of the pram at the prospect of anything other than lockdown continuing, like they are at the moment, then we may be waiting until all the shielders and everybody over 50 has been vaccinated.
And they did of course show the Catholic Church (or an offshoot of it) in redemption at the end with her idyllic, not to say palatial home for single mothers in France which I think was a religious order.
Patel addressed the concerns the first time they were raised and co-operated with an inquiry that said she had changed behaviour and there was no ongoing concerns.
Which is worse in your eyes: The white man or the BAME woman?
It is a fairly common thread to many medical scandals that a culture of bullying was a major part of the underlying causation. Organisations run by fear and coercion are rarely very good at serving their customers either.
Nice try though.
Now, that might have been political rhetoric for the purposes of the interview (LBC I think), but that seems to be informing govt policy - one death is too much.
Now of course that one death is a tragedy for the people and family concerned but I'm not sure it's sustainable to run a country like that.
"Brexit deal close to being finalised, EU ambassadors told
Most key issues largely agreed, but there is still a danger of no deal by accident, envoys hear"
Thanks goodness we don't have an accident-prone government then.
Which was worse for "bullying" - Bercow or Patel?
Staying at home when a partner is positive is not being a fraud. Going to work in a hospital when a partner is positive, now that would be being a "fraud".
I hope you both stay symptom free.
She breached it, she should have been sacked.
Yet another constitutional norm Boris Johnson has ignored.
H. Y. P. O. C. R. I. T. E.
Western democracies including us also wrote W. Germany's federal constitution ... but the UK didn't adopt it, i.e. complete with devolution, states' rights, two chambers elected at different times, PR, independent courts .... (The USA already had these.)
On the other hand, we know for certain that, on top of this report, she is a liar who was sacked for serial lying to the previous Prime Minister about her conduct in Israel.
And that she takes the ministerial code about as seriously as The Code of the Woosters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/priti-patel-accused-of-breaching-ministerial-code-for-second-time
Have you any reason for thinking her particularly competent ?
A young Asian, immigrant class, female minister takes over a department full of Oxbridge educated old white middle to upper class men. They see her as an affront to them, a threat to their domination of the establishment. They refuse to work with her and refuse to take directions from her and she, increasingly frustrated, has had enough of these old white elitists telling her how things are done and she fucks them off.
I have much more sympathy to her because I've lived this career for the last 5 years, taking over teams dominated by older white Oxbridge educated elitists who look down their noses at a working class Asian man who went to Cardiff university and state school, at least I have ways to move these people on and get a team in that doesn't rely on their societal status to get their way.
Then on Monday, PA and MI get the cert - triggering settlement of those 2 states and also (finally!) of the outright winner market since Biden will then have over 270 projected EC votes from states that have been settled.
That's the precedence for bullying allegations. Patel's been treated much harsher than Bercow ever was and quite right too. Those who want even more are just vindictive.
I don't think you really have a clue about today's Civil Service. It's simply not as you describe.
Apart from her bullying, the problem with Patel is that she is intellectually challenged and ineffective (e.g. her lack of progress on Channel crossings). It wouldn't surprise me much at all if she struggled to earn the respect of her civil servants, and then lashed out.
These things didn't end their career. Many argued they were allowed to come back too soon. But the ministerial code at least meant something such that they had to step down once it was determined they were in breach.
I guess the issue is these days that if you look closely enough you will barely find a Cabinet Minister who isn't in breach somewhere. Up to and including the Prime Minister.
Which is exactly the basis Johnson operates on. Just without the guileless charm. Or a Jeeves figure to get him out of scrapes.
For me, if she's done wrong, to the extent of breaching the code, she should go. If civil servants did wrong, as apparently suggested by the report, they (if any implicated are still in post) should go too.
That's a small difference compared to gender and ethnicity, but some would dare to suggest it's an important one.
C'mon.
Given her track record to date, though, I have my doubts.
I note there's still an employment tribunal to be held (next September !) for Rutnam's claim against her.
Totally innumerate, and saying so is neither racist nor sexist.
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.
Truly, the child is the father to the man- though most of us manage to grow up at least a little bit.
Has she yet opined on what kind of a man would get bullied by a tiny BAME woman?
Great debate on the extent to which Donald's behaviour is caused by his father and his upbringing.
What will that do for uptake? I may wish to take my chances rather than have a little bit of Donald in my arm.
On the other hand, he is a prick.
Imagine this was a Labour MP, how quickly Tories would cry fowl.
It also gets raised again and again these days by people despite her no longer being prominent and it being quite some time ago. Those people are themselves almost certainly racist and sexist.
And a follow up question - you also called her "illiterate".
Where's that coming from?
Abbott's not very clever. Here's exhibit B, if you require it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4o5n2EGyA
Patel should never have been allowed back in the Cabinet.
Neither of those things are sexist or racist because both relate to things the individuals have said and done.
Ethnic minorities and women aren't lesser creatures to be held to a feebler standard.
Because once you start straying into the area of "justifiable" breaches then you can always find justification on some level. Or even without "justification" a reason to not sack a minister (perhaps because they are too important to lose etc). Ministers have enormous powers and limited direct scrutiny over what they do with them. They simply must be held to the highest standards or the whole system falls apart.
If punishment for breaches of the ministerial code simply become a judgement call to the PM, then all a minister has to do is make themselves appear indispensible and they become untouchable. Which is a very bad route to go down.
If a PM decides that they don't believe the code has been breached then fine, although they have to be able to explain why not. But once they are determined to be in breach, the consequences should be clear. However hard done by they feel.
Hypocrisy is your forte today.
I can't believe any pharmaceutical companies would be so preposterous.
Chicken! Turkey!
Better?What happens if in future a minister acts dubiously and the PM actually wants to get rid of them. But wants the cover of a breach of the code to actually do it. Not possible any more - people will always be able to refer back and say "why does this breach warrant a sacking, when the previous one didn't?"
You see someone as being in the same "group" as you in some way
Therefore they've had the same negative experience
That negative experience is also the reason for them being wrongly accused of wrongdoing
versus
They did something wrong and got caught