politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite 34% voters thinking Jeremy Corbyn personally has anti-
Comments
-
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11kle4 said:
I didn't say they did run it now like they did before. I asked if they were in effective control of parts of it. 17 years in, is that a positive sign for the country? It hardly seems so, apparently they have been gaining strength in the last few years.HYUFD said:
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the countrykle4 said:
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from powerRichard_Tyndall said:
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?JosiasJessop said:
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "Richard_Tyndall said:
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.Philip_Thompson said:
ISIS were an almoswould have won.SeanT said:
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?TheScreamingEagles said:I hate Ed Miliband so much.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/983003810808385536
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.0 -
Bin Laden is dead, the Taliban no longer run the country, that is all that mattersSeanT said:For HYUFD:
Afghanistan is still in chaos, still being bombed, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a potent menace. This after we spent sixty bazillion dollars "defeating" them.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-us-afghanistan-forces-step-up-air-strikes-targeting-taliban-drug/
0 -
The 'so what' is that that is about the best example of intervention, and it is a deeply flawed one which is very very far from an unqualified success.HYUFD said:
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11kle4 said:
I didn't say they did run it now like th last few years.HYUFD said:
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the countrykle4 said:
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from powerRichard_Tyndall said:
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?JosiasJessop said:
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "Richard_Tyndall said:
Absolute r al-NusraPhilip_Thompson said:
ISIS were an almoswould have won.SeanT said:
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?TheScreamingEagles said:I hate Ed Miliband so much.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/983003810808385536
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.
I happen to agree that, on balance, it probably was worth it, and I have been making the point we cannot and should not rule out intervening sometimes, as doing nothing might be worse than another Afghanistan sometimes. But the caution is understandable, and usually doing nothing is probably best.
0 -
@HungaryElects
Rumours: Most of the constituencies of Budapest are won by opposition. Fidesz-KDNP (EPP) won by landslide in other counties.
#Választás2018 #április8 #Országgyűlés #Orbán #KarácsonyGergely #VonaGábor #Hungary #HungaryElections
close to a truism
remember - most of the votes have now been counted, they just can't release the results...0 -
-
Definitely Remainers on holiday!Casino_Royale said:0 -
Agreed but his failing is he does not do detail or can he be reliableHYUFD said:
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two togetherTheJezziah said:
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.HYUFD said:
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little betterydoethur said:Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.0 -
After 3000 westerners, including Britons, were killed on 9/11 in a terrorist attack plotted from Afghanistan doing nothing there was not an option as I think we are agreed.kle4 said:
The 'so what' is that that is about the best example of intervention, and it is a deeply flawed one which is very very far from an unqualified success.HYUFD said:
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11kle4 said:
I didn't say they did run it now like th last few years.HYUFD said:
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the countrykle4 said:
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from powerRichard_Tyndall said:
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?JosiasJessop said:
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "Richard_Tyndall said:
Absolute r al-NusraPhilip_Thompson said:
ISIS were an almoswould have won.SeanT said:
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?TheScreamingEagles said:I hate Ed Miliband so much.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/983003810808385536
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.
I happen to agree that, on balrobably best.
Afghanistan has always been tribal and tough terrain, the key strategic objective should always have been to remove Bin Laden not turn it into a liberal nirvana0 -
We have come so far.Casino_Royale said:0 -
The last few words of your post - What's the murder rate this year ?murali_s said:
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.SeanT said:This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
Next month we go to the polls here in London. The Tories will be skewered in our sophisticated progressive city.
0 -
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
0 -
Certainly May seems to be doing better than any other at the momentSeanT said:
Boris is an extremely smart man who makes oddly dumb decisions (out of laziness, distractedness or a juvenile desire to provoke).HYUFD said:
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two togetherTheJezziah said:
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.HYUFD said:
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little betterydoethur said:Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.
He would only be a good prime minister in a time of real desperate crisis, a charismatic Churchill figure. He is not a Thatcher who could grind through the detail and transform an economy, which is what we are going to need post-Brexit.
So his time is now unlikely to arrive. I suspect the next Tory leader will be relatively unknown, as TMay will now probably last to 2022.0 -
Probably. As a low level grunt, it sometimes seems to me that some very able people in high positions nevertheless over estimate their ability to tell how much an organisation can take. I equate it to people trimming fingernails with a machete - they might judge it just right, but they also won't know if they judged it wrong until blood starts coming out of the stumps.Foxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
Not as much as May but he did manage as London MayorBig_G_NorthWales said:
Agreed but his failing is he does not do detail or can he be reliableHYUFD said:
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two togetherTheJezziah said:
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.HYUFD said:
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little betterydoethur said:Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.0 -
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
0 -
Height of his powers - he makes too many unenforced errorsHYUFD said:
Not as much as May but he did manage as London MayorBig_G_NorthWales said:
Agreed but his failing is he does not do detail or can he be reliableHYUFD said:
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two togetherTheJezziah said:
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.HYUFD said:
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little betterydoethur said:Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.0 -
Ah, thanks. Looks like the boy Miller couldn't take advantage.tlg86 said:
I fast forwarded through it, but it looks like the man on pole Jack Miller gambled on slicks. By the time they did the formation lap, the rest of the field saw that he'd made the right call so they all went into the pits and forced the start to be delayed. They were allowed to switch to slicks but had to start nine rows (50m) behind Miller which was an absolutely farcical sight.Theuniondivvie said:
Just read the v.brief report on BBC, quite pleased as I'm a Ducatisti. What were the shennanigans?tlg86 said:I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
0 -
Presumably that's why he had to dump his WIS stat so lowHYUFD said:
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two togetherTheJezziah said:
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.HYUFD said:
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little betterydoethur said:Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
Edit: @LordOfReason
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.0 -
Yes we were there to turn them into western-style democracies. The American neocons were convinced democracy would take root once the dictators were ousted. And bin Laden was not killed in the war against the taliban.HYUFD said:
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.Richard_Tyndall said:
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath0 -
Except now Libya is a continual blood bath and we just ignore it because it was our doing. And the Taliban will be back in government in Afghanistan in the not too distant future.HYUFD said:
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.Richard_Tyndall said:
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath0 -
He was thoroughly screwed over. The rest of them should have been made to change bikes in the pit lane and start from there. It would have handed the race to Miller, but he deserved to win for making the right call.Theuniondivvie said:
Ah, thanks. Looks like the boy Miller couldn't take advantage.tlg86 said:
I fast forwarded through it, but it looks like the man on pole Jack Miller gambled on slicks. By the time they did the formation lap, the rest of the field saw that he'd made the right call so they all went into the pits and forced the start to be delayed. They were allowed to switch to slicks but had to start nine rows (50m) behind Miller which was an absolutely farcical sight.Theuniondivvie said:
Just read the v.brief report on BBC, quite pleased as I'm a Ducatisti. What were the shennanigans?tlg86 said:I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
As for Marquez, my bet isn't looking to clever tonight. Having fought his way up to seventh, he rammed old man Rossi off the track and was handed a 30 second time penalty taking him out of the points. Marquez was by far the quickest out there, but I fear he may face further penalties for his behaviour today.0 -
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....0
-
Bin Laden was only killed in Pakistan once he was an easier target than in the mountains of Afghanistan.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes we were there to turn them into western-style democracies. The American neocons were convinced democracy would take root once the dictators were ousted. And bin Laden was not killed in the war against the taliban.HYUFD said:
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.Richard_Tyndall said:
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
Some of the more dreamy neocons may have wanted to turn Afghanistan into western-style democracies, the likes of John Bolton certainly did not. Bolton believes wars should be used to protect US national security interests not to promote democracy and liberalism. Trump shares a similar worldview and has just appointed Bolton his national security adviser
0 -
A very good point!HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
The other problem with stack ranking is that it engenders a competition of individuals rather than teamwork and cooperation.0 -
I think its a fair argument. Every conflict is different and people constantly referring back to Iraq - which was unique in its incompetence - shouldn't render the west impotent in the face of what is irrefutable evidence of a chemical attack.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
0 -
Btw, for the first time in decades a Brit is leading Motogp.0
-
Had Gadhafi remained in power hundreds of thousands would have been killed in Benghazi.Richard_Tyndall said:
Except now Libya is a continual blood bath and we just ignore it because it was our doing. And the Taliban will be back in government in Afghanistan in the not too distant future.HYUFD said:
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.Richard_Tyndall said:
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.HYUFD said:
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
The Taliban may have a token role in government in Afghanistan eventually but so what, they no longer run the whole show, the government is largely made up of the tribal Pashtun majority and most importantly of all Bin Laden is dead0 -
Fidesz/KNDP-EPP: 3 (Csongrád IV; Hajdú-Bihar X; Veszprém I)
MSZP/P-S&D/G/EFA: 2 (Budapest XII; Csongrád I)
LMP-G/EFA: 1 (Budapest I)0 -
That's two losses for FideszTheWhiteRabbit said:Fidesz/KNDP-EPP: 3 (Csongrád IV; Hajdú-Bihar X; Veszprém I)
MSZP/P-S&D/G/EFA: 2 (Budapest XII; Csongrád I)
LMP-G/EFA: 1 (Budapest I)0 -
Indeed, I prefer the use of bonuses etc to reward success, including of teams, than just sacking the weakest performers. If they are underperforming try and give them training to get their improvement up. Sacking should be a last resortBenpointer said:
A very good point!HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
The other problem with stack ranking is that it engenders a competition of individuals rather than teamwork and cooperation.0 -
Does Mercer want his own government to send in the RAF to bomb Russian bases, because that might not end well, or is he hoping the Americans will do something?The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
According to Wikipedia, somewhere between a quarter and half a million Syrians have been killed in this war. I expect if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now.0 -
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
0 -
Perhaps Mercer thinks that we should be bombing both sides of a Civil warDecrepitJohnL said:
Does Mercer want his own government to send in the RAF to bomb Russian bases, because that might not end well, or is he hoping the Americans will do something?The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
According to Wikipedia, somewhere between a quarter and half a million Syrians have been killed in this war. I expect if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now.
These deaths are appalling, but we are no longer the worlds policeman.
The FSA has lost the war, Assad will resume full control. They need to strike terms of surrender, or flee.0 -
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.0 -
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
0 -
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.0 -
Whether in fact there is something we can or should do in Syria, you make the point far more concisely than I managed about judging every conflict on its particular circumstances.Razedabode said:
I think its a fair argument. Every conflict is different and people constantly referring back to Iraq - which was unique in its incompetence - shouldn't render the west impotent in the face of what is irrefutable evidence of a chemical attack.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
0 -
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
I think we've intervened rather a lot in Syria and the region, and that's part of why it is in the position it is today.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
If he's arguing that we should have launched a full scale invasion and regime change, I might have sympathies, but that wasn't what was proposed in 2013.0 -
Fidesz now expected to get 110-132 seats0
-
Rather like with the action in Libya that prevented a massacre in Benghazi, I think we owe it to the people of Syria to tell Assad - in the only way he understands - that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. We should have made that clear to him half a decade ago.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
Given the radically different administration now in place in the US, the planes are probably going to be in the air by tomorrow night.0 -
It might have prevented a massacre but it has led to tens pf thousands of subsequent deaths and the exporting of violence to lots of neighbouring countries.Sandpit said:
Rather like with the action in Libya that prevented a massacre in Benghazi, I think we owe it to the people of Syria to tell Assad - in the only way he understands - that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. We should have made that clear to him half a decade ago.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.The_Apocalypse said:Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
Given the radically different administration now in place in the US, the planes are probably going to be in the air by tomorrow night.
And of course the US did subsequently bomb Syria and it made not a blind bit of difference.0 -
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
It's what I voted for.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.0 -
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
:ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
:
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.0 -
This is fake news, genuinely. Europe Elects have misinterpreted the latest YouGov VI poll.Casino_Royale said:0 -
Really? surely the purpose was to engage with the neoliberal economies around the world.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Unless you fancy a Corbynite Fortress Britain.0 -
The unspoken thing in all this is demotion - a cultural impossibility in the developed world these days. Some people just need to be demoted until they can do the job they have.Philip_Thompson said:
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
Well, you should have voted Remain. It was impossible to foresee at the time, but after Brexit and GE 2017 the political centre has abandoned neoliberalism.Philip_Thompson said:
It's what I voted for.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
0 -
Spieth making a hell of a charge......0
-
Both primarily advocated returning sovereignty, Leave.EU focused on reducing immigration.Philip_Thompson said:
It's what I voted for.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
That was what won it for Leave, certainly not slashing workplace regulations and spending further. Hence the Leave vote was followed by a Corbyn led Labour Party getting 40% at the subsequent general election
0 -
How are they going to get that job after being fired unless they are trained for it?Philip_Thompson said:
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Even if done through the Job Centre etc that is going to take a while0 -
"Many people are whispering that the MSZP is tragically poorly performing in the countryside, and the good performances in Pest will not be enough." (The MSZP are Labour, more or less)0
-
Yes, a Remain victory followed by an overall majority for a George Osborne led Tory Party at the next general election would have seen the political centre embrace neoliberalism, what has occurred is anything butnielh said:
Well, you should have voted Remain. It was impossible to foresee at the time, but after Brexit and GE 2017 the political centre has abandoned neoliberalism.Philip_Thompson said:
It's what I voted for.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakesor belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.0 -
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilitiesMalmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
:ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
:
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.0 -
It was more neoliberalism for a few wealthy leavers in west London and the Home Counties.Foxy said:
Really? surely the purpose was to engage with the neoliberal economies around the world.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my proote, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Unless you fancy a Corbynite Fortress Britain.
For most of the voters who actually won it for Leave in the North and Midlands and Wales, it was centrist economics at best they wanted, if not left economics, combined with much tougher immigration laws and a more protectionist trade policy
0 -
-
-
Ha, bloody BBC, didn't notice that their Motogp report was for Quatar! Thought the 123 looked familiar.tlg86 said:Btw, for the first time in decades a Brit is leading Motogp.
Hopefully Crutchlow can keep away from the crutch part of his name.0 -
It sounds like he is just in the wrong job. But he was hired in the first place, so the employer has to take some responsibility for the situation.Malmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
As a general maxim for life, I have found that it is better to be optimistic about people and their potential.0 -
Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/9830786897883873280 -
It was a vote for leaving the European Union, nothing more, nothing less.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....HYUFD said:
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilitiesMalmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
:ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
:
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.0 -
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
nielh said:
This guy is untrainable, and does negative amounts of work - he creates fuckups which other people have to fix.Malmesbury said:
It sounds like he is just in the wrong job. But he was hired in the first place, so the employer has to take some responsibility for the situation.HYUFD said:
:Malmesbury said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseHYUFD said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.rcs1000 said:
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
As a general maxim for life, I have found that it is better to be optimistic about people and their potential.
You can't fix people. Quite simply, there are a large number of people out there like this guy. In a world without many mechanistic, simple jobs of the "put the half finished piece on the capstan lathe like this. Press this button to spin up. Wait, push the lever. Spin down. Remove..... put the...." type - what are they capable off?
The capstan lathes are all gone from the factories. These days you have the bright types running the 5 axis lathes - numerate, able to solve problems, fix stuff, etc all by themselves.0 -
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/9830786897883873280 -
kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
0 -
Fidesz have been returned on an increased vote share, similar majority.
It's hovering at 49.5%, I could do with it edging down (foreign votes will probably help)0 -
-
Sky predicting 134 seatsTheWhiteRabbit said:Fidesz have been returned on an increased vote share, similar majority.
It's hovering at 49.5%, I could do with it edging down (foreign votes will probably help)0 -
As almost every poll showed the reason why people voted to leave the EU was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigrationrcs1000 said:
It was a vote for leaving the European Union, nothing more, nothing less.HYUFD said:
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalismnielh said:
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.0 -
Well maybe he is not suited to a managerial roleMalmesbury said:
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....HYUFD said:
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilitiesMalmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
:ydoethur said:
:glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
:
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.0 -
Pretty unlikely if the "offended party" isn't seeking it.MarkHopkins said:kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
If guessing the password of a political opponent, logging in and doing something mildly stupid is going to be prosecuted, then ex Student Union politicians will be figuring quite largely in the tidal wave of court cases that will finally sink our court system.
Then again....0 -
A job which they will most likely need training for in order to add value.rcs1000 said:
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Plus of course the NHS is not all surgeons and GPs and managers or even nurses, there are also secretaries and caterers and porters and cleaners too0 -
Yes, there was a Yes Minister episode all about it.HYUFD said:
A job which they will most likely need training for in order to add value.rcs1000 said:
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.HYUFD said:
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or belowrcs1000 said:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.HYUFD said:
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet furtherFoxy said:
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.ydoethur said:
No.glw said:
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.ydoethur said:Depends on what you spend it on.
Spending it on new operating theatres is good.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Plus of course the NHS is not all surgeons and GPs and managers or even nurses, there are also secretaries and caterers and porters and cleaners too0 -
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.MarkHopkins said:kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.0 -
I was being slightly sardonic - "Managerial" in the sense of wearing a shirt with a tie.HYUFD said:
Well maybe he is not suited to a managerial roleMalmesbury said:
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....HYUFD said:
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilitiesMalmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
He is not able to do anything that requires any kind of self planning. Even modern factory jobs would be a question mark.
The problem is that firing people is hard. Perhaps he should be sent to govern New South Wales?0 -
Don't you think the police have better things to investigate?Yorkcity said:
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.MarkHopkins said:kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.0 -
Well we need more carers for exampleMalmesbury said:
I was being slightly sardonic - "Managerial" in the sense of wearing a shirt with a tie.HYUFD said:
Well maybe he is not suited to a managerial roleMalmesbury said:
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....HYUFD said:
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilitiesMalmesbury said:
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).HYUFD said:
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something elseMalmesbury said:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.HYUFD said:
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
He is not able to do anything that requires any kind of self planning. Even modern factory jobs would be a question mark.
The problem is that firing people is hard. Perhaps he should be sent to govern New South Wales?
0 -
Well of course police have to prioritise their resources. Though with an open admission even acknowledging any investigation will take some amount of time, one would hope it would not be too resource intensive.RobD said:
Don't you think the police have better things to investigate?Yorkcity said:
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.MarkHopkins said:kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.0 -
I'm happy with a small profit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Sky predicting 134 seatsTheWhiteRabbit said:Fidesz have been returned on an increased vote share, similar majority.
It's hovering at 49.5%, I could do with it edging down (foreign votes will probably help)0 -
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/9830786897883873280 -
Is Corbyn facing the perfect storm
Failure to condemn Russia over nerve agent attack
Failure to deal with Anti Semitism
Failure to condemn Russia and Iran over gas attack killing many children in Syria.
His association with Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti west forces now front centre and across the media0 -
Evening all - just catching up. I take it we're running a book on when Southam leaves the Labour Party in disgust again. Where do I find the prices?0
-
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/9830786897883873280 -
As someone observed on PB a few weeks back, our FS (FFS) is the world's most expensive children's entertainer.0
-
The most heinous of crimes. Surprised we abolished the death penalty for it, to be honest.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/9830786897883873280 -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/08/thequeenshould-win-nobel-peace-prize-say-ministers-commonwealth/
The Queen should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her six decades' service to the Commonwealth, senior political figures and ministers say.0 -
22:01 on 5 May 2022?Richard_Nabavi said:Evening all - just catching up. I take it we're running a book on when Southam leaves the Labour Party in disgust again. Where do I find the prices?
0 -
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
It is Harman who is the guilty person.0 -
Good bit of victimblaming. Is it fine to burgle houses with open windows or unlocked doors?YBarddCwsc said:
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
It is Harman who is the guilty person.0 -
A top contender for most idiotic post of the year.YBarddCwsc said:
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
It is Harman who is the guilty person.0 -
Plenty of crimes go unpunished.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
When a prime minister was found to be selling peerages, the CPS took the view that it would be unfair to prosecute - since lots of other prime ministers had done the same thing.....0 -
Certainly not.murali_s said:
A top contender for most idiotic post of the year.YBarddCwsc said:
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.murali_s said:
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?MarqueeMark said:
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!kle4 said:
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.williamglenn said:Harriet Harman outs herself as the hacking victim.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
It is Harman who is the guilty person.
If you are for example an examiner, and the exams are stored on your computer, you are responsible for the security.
An examiner would be facing disciplinary action if they had compromised the security of an exam.
It is you who are a weapons-grade idiot.0 -
Imagine being so credulous, that you accept without question the idea that every time the Syrian forces are close to another victory, they keep mysteriously using chemical weapons (to no military advantage whatsoever), giving the jihadis’ sponsors potential reasons to intervene. Literally every time. You'd have to be a bit simple to take this at face value, wouldnt you? Then again, none so blind as those who will not see, I suppose.
I suppose I’m looking in the wrong place for critical thought here, amongst senile government stenographers and pompous gobshites.0 -
Budapest on Channel 4 at the moment because the new film version of Tinker Tailor... has just started. Bit of a coincidence with the Hungarian election today.0
-
How many Tory MPs are criticising a rogue nation like Israel for the systematic and planned murder of Palestinian children day in day out? When will the UK government take action against state terrorism? Weak and pathetic is the usual response! Meanwhile a pariah nation like Israel gets away with murder - quite literally.Big_G_NorthWales said:Is Corbyn facing the perfect storm
Failure to condemn Russia over nerve agent attack
Failure to deal with Anti Semitism
Failure to condemn Russia and Iran over gas attack killing many children in Syria.
His association with Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti west forces now front centre and across the media0