Discussion
BlackLabel said:
If you listen to it properly, he says i thought we were better than this. I think he is referring to the politicians who have screwed this up.Mrr T said:
I work in an environment which is highly unregulated, international implications, and very legal influenced. They are trying to introduce agile. The trainer came in to assist with project planning it was a joke. They took a project which required multiple deliverables. The first idea was to break the deliverable down and deliver seperatly. Great idea but the deliverable are not saleable individualy. His next idea was to approach a client to trial a deliverable. I suggested it was best to understand the regulatory environment so as to ensure the client could legally use the product. He was confused. We ended up with sprints and lots of scrums but little progress. Adgile may have its uses but not in my world.
I've worked with a couple of multi-billion dollar corporates trying to get their heads around agile. It's hilarious - from a distance.Usually they end up doing the cargo-cult thing of using the words and rituals ("We do sprints and scrums") but trying to retain just enough of their old process to keep themselves comfortable. It's a car crash every time.
I'd say across a dozen or so companies about half of them have managed to f
k it up so completely that they'll never dare change their processes for a generation. A handful have got on just fine and done no worse or better than their traditional process. One managed to take a 25 year old product managed by a few hundred staff and used across a highly regulated and safety critical industry - and rebuild it from the ground up with a team of just six people in under a year.Most of the conversations I hear around the subject is "Yes, but we can't do it because....". Oh well, it's not my job to convince you otherwise.
BlackLabel said:
i'm sure most of the people who call James O'Brien are wind up merchants.El stovey said:
The eurosceptic MPs are again causing untold damage to the party. If Corbyn gets in, it will be entirely their fault. Why aren’t any of them leading the party? Because they’re all unelectable.
Not the leadership betraying their own manifesto and the people that voted for them.You can keep repeating it is all the fault of Eurosceptic MPs as often as you like, it will not make it true.
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
The eurosceptic MPs are again causing untold damage to the party. If Corbyn gets in, it will be entirely their fault. Why aren’t any of them leading the party? Because they’re all unelectable.
Not the leadership betraying their own manifesto and the people that voted for them.You can keep repeating it is all the fault of Eurosceptic MPs as often as you like, it will not make it true.
El stovey said:
It’s the same MPs that led to the end of Major. All too unelectable to lead the party but throwing stones from the sidelines and gaining power on the coattails of those they seek to undermine. Absolute Machiavellian scum bags.
Or true patriots.Major signed us up to the cokup that is the EU that the country has now rejected. They were right then and they are right now to reject what is being tabled.
jsf said:
BlackLabel said:
If you listen to it properly, he says i thought we were better than this. I think he is referring to the politicians who have screwed this up.El stovey said:
It’s the same MPs that led to the end of Major. All too unelectable to lead the party but throwing stones from the sidelines and gaining power on the coattails of those they seek to undermine. Absolute Machiavellian scum bags.
The signing of the Maastricht treaty led the UK on the path to the out vote in 2016. The British people signed up for a free trade area in 1975 not a federal state. That was the moment to create a bespoke status for the UK, similar to the bespoke arrangement Switzerland has with the EU. Instead the handful of rebels were dismissed as cranks and eccentrics, even bast*rds, and 24 years after that treaty was signed 52% of the British people went further than those rebels by backing complete withdrawal.
Mrr T said:
Hope it's ok I edited your post for readability of the tread.
My position is influenced by my work. We as a business do little without extensive planning and research. We prepare business plans, budgets, contingency plans, issues logs. This will include estimates based on extensive and often expensive research. Even after all the planning its often plans get cancelled because they just do not work.
As I have always said I would have voted leave if the leave plan was EFTA/EEA plus a customs arrangement. This would have given the UK many benefits with little downside. I never cared about EU imigration. The UK could then have looked at the costs and benefits of leaving the CU and/or the SM.
Basing your plans on a "it will be alright on the night" philosophy is not, in my view, a good idea. Remember the 6 P's.
If the 6Ps had been looked at in 1973, or more pertinently 1992 we would never have been in this position...
That said I'm generally with you on the 6Ps, but as I get older I realise that at a country level you can't always do that. The detail you crave is impossible to generate in any meaningful timeframe and in any absolute way. And how do you put a business case against principles that are not purely economic even if they could be? The country and government are not businesses, and if they were the social problems that people are (sometimes rightly) concerned about in this country would be far, far worse than they are now.
That you aren't bothered about EU migration is fine and helped drive your vote. But in dismissing other people as idiots wanting unicorns because they feel differently is idiotic in itself. It also highlights where trying to look at things empirically at a country level is pointless - your pocket of the country is not impacted. But quite evidently there are other pockets around the country that are. You cannot (or rather should not) just dismiss those things.
El stovey said:
May is the prime minister, she’s setting the direction of the party and the policies. If MPs don’t like it they should criticise robustly her policies to her face in private and show support in public. If they can’t do that they should leave,
It’s a political party not a religion or family. If conservative voters, don’t like it they should find a party that agrees with their world view,
She’s the leader of the country and she’s leading it as she sees best.
The eurosceptic MPs are again causing untold damage to the party. If Corbyn gets in, it will be entirely their fault. Why aren’t any of them leading the party? Because they’re all unelectable.
Sorry but this is rubbish. The loyalty of an MP is first and foremost to his constituents and to his country. Party comes lower. Leader lower still. It’s a political party not a religion or family. If conservative voters, don’t like it they should find a party that agrees with their world view,
She’s the leader of the country and she’s leading it as she sees best.
The eurosceptic MPs are again causing untold damage to the party. If Corbyn gets in, it will be entirely their fault. Why aren’t any of them leading the party? Because they’re all unelectable.
May does not own the freehold of the Conservative Party. She is metaphorically a lessee, but she needs to observe the conditions of the lease. She has not. When May reneges on promises made only last year and when it is patently apparent she has made no real effort even to try honouring them, she should forfeit that lease.
Her bigger problem is that she can lead while she formally enjoys the confidence of the majority her MPs, even when it is patently obvious that she does not enjoy widespread confidence, so she is being left to twist in a job in which she is fated to fail. I think it is that, which is immoral. ERG members have called for a confidence vote, as is their right. Chastising them for doing so, while briefing against the PM and undermining her (Soubry? Clarke?) seems far less plain-dealing and even dishonourable.
I have been involved in the dismissal of company directors where colleagues were prepared to b
h about performance but not prepared to act on their dissatisfaction. You can't have that. Either you support someone and then accept the consequences or you act quickly to remove them once you no longer have confidence in them. It is bad for all parties not to.As for losing the next election, May is managing that all by herself. Do you really think that if dissident MPs kept quiet, the electorate would assume that all was rosy? The electorate are not idiots. May weakened herself calling an unnecessary election, and her shabby and deceitful behaviour before, during and after it are a much more apposite place to lay the blame (if that is the right word) for the likelihood of a Corbyn administration.
Being generous and assuming that she is not completely mendacious, if at any point she arrived at the conclusion that neither Lancaster House nor a meaningful Brexit was deliverable, she should have come clean and given Parliament and the country the decision on what to do next. Instead, she decided to insult our collective intelligence and con us. Presenting white as black and rolling a metaphorical turd in glitter insults the intelligence of all of us.
Anyway, if Corbyn wins an election fair and square, what's the problem? He can't do worse than Calamity May.
jsf said:
El stovey said:
It’s the same MPs that led to the end of Major. All too unelectable to lead the party but throwing stones from the sidelines and gaining power on the coattails of those they seek to undermine. Absolute Machiavellian scum bags.
Or true patriots.Major signed us up to the cokup that is the EU that the country has now rejected. They were right then and they are right now to reject what is being tabled.
Anyhow one thing I cant get my head around with this leadership challenge is all these Tory MPs saying now is not the right time and losing would mean her staying around for another year.
I cant stand the woman now but what is the big issue about her staying around for another year?. The May domestic programme seems to consist of stasis in most areas, with a bit of extra spending and more housing. The only contentious part of her programme is the EU withdrawal bill she negotiated which most profess to either hate or dislike.
Her going after it is passed will make no difference to future trade negotiations as far as I can see. You could send a negotiating team of Metternich and Bismark to negotiate on our behalf and that wont change the fact that all the cards will be held by the EU as a result of this withdrawal agreement.
The only purpose it does serve therefore, IMO, is to try and hoodwink the British public. May will either get this agreement through or cancel Brexit, be ushered out, and then her successor be brought in to roundly condemn what she has done, which cannot now be reversed. It is all just political stage management.
I cant stand the woman now but what is the big issue about her staying around for another year?. The May domestic programme seems to consist of stasis in most areas, with a bit of extra spending and more housing. The only contentious part of her programme is the EU withdrawal bill she negotiated which most profess to either hate or dislike.
Her going after it is passed will make no difference to future trade negotiations as far as I can see. You could send a negotiating team of Metternich and Bismark to negotiate on our behalf and that wont change the fact that all the cards will be held by the EU as a result of this withdrawal agreement.
The only purpose it does serve therefore, IMO, is to try and hoodwink the British public. May will either get this agreement through or cancel Brexit, be ushered out, and then her successor be brought in to roundly condemn what she has done, which cannot now be reversed. It is all just political stage management.
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
Hope it's ok I edited your post for readability of the tread.
My position is influenced by my work. We as a business do little without extensive planning and research. We prepare business plans, budgets, contingency plans, issues logs. This will include estimates based on extensive and often expensive research. Even after all the planning its often plans get cancelled because they just do not work.
As I have always said I would have voted leave if the leave plan was EFTA/EEA plus a customs arrangement. This would have given the UK many benefits with little downside. I never cared about EU imigration. The UK could then have looked at the costs and benefits of leaving the CU and/or the SM.
Basing your plans on a "it will be alright on the night" philosophy is not, in my view, a good idea. Remember the 6 P's.
<snip>
That you aren't bothered about EU migration is fine and helped drive your vote. But in dismissing other people as idiots wanting unicorns because they feel differently is idiotic in itself. It also highlights where trying to look at things empirically at a country level is pointless - your pocket of the country is not impacted. But quite evidently there are other pockets around the country that are. You cannot (or rather should not) just dismiss those things.
psi310398 said:
Anyway, if Corbyn wins an election fair and square, what's the problem? He can't do worse than Calamity May.
This point is definitely wrong. Honestly, I wonder sometimes why generally reasonable people lose perspective when the topic is Brexit.
Sure, Brexit is a major change, and it is important, but it isn't *that* important. And it doesn't trump everything else.
And for the record, if I were an MP, I'd be supporting May's deal.
It was always going to be messy leaving the EU. But there will be plenty of opportunity for future governments to improve the relationship with the EU over the long term. And with the passage of time, the EU will be a lot less sensitive and will become much more pragmatic about agreeing future arrangements which are in their best interest.
Tuna said:
It's certainly a risk/reward thing, and it's clear different posters on here have different backgrounds and tolerances in that regard. There's a reason Agile is seen as a big step in the tech sector - we've spend decades trying to do the 6 P's thing and discovered time and time again that it hits a brick wall within the moments of starting a big project. The Unknown unknowns get you every single time.
CLIP
The thing is - in all of this, no-one has come up with a concrete risk for leaving. By that I mean there's lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt, but when you drill down it's always "we might loose a single digit percentage of X". There are still people who talk as though leaving will bring all trade to a halt. It won't. Yes, for sure that's risk, but it's no more risk than currency fluctuations, trade wars, real wars, changes in government and all the other **** that hits the fan that you can't plan or predict, but have to react to.
Thanks for this - interesting. I read this while having a fag break - been moving a load of stock all day.CLIP
The thing is - in all of this, no-one has come up with a concrete risk for leaving. By that I mean there's lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt, but when you drill down it's always "we might loose a single digit percentage of X". There are still people who talk as though leaving will bring all trade to a halt. It won't. Yes, for sure that's risk, but it's no more risk than currency fluctuations, trade wars, real wars, changes in government and all the other **** that hits the fan that you can't plan or predict, but have to react to.
I've been pondering what you said all afternoon.
When I worked for one of the Big Four, life for fee-earners was made miserable by our 'Business Prevention Department' - I think all large corporations have them in different guises. (While I understand the need for quality and reputation management, one of the joys of running my own business is not wasting time on pointless box-ticking, trying to eliminate any and every conceivable risk to the organisation itself, rather than the client, and, in the process being infantilised by that particular function.)
It occurs to me that the mentalities in the Remain/Leave debate mirror closely the risk averse, bureaucratic approach of QA/Risk/Business Acceptance versus the more buccaneering/risk embracing approach of fee earners and sales people. Obviously, any sustainable organisation needs a balance of the two types but I wonder if part of the Remainer fear of leaving the EU is the (IMV) over-regulated, over-lawyered business environment of a modern economy? I'm not trolling, it is a sincere question.
Or have the diesel fumes of my rental van got to me?
BTW, as this is ostensibly a car forum, who in their right minds buys a Renault van?
El stovey said:
It’s the same MPs that led to the end of Major. All too unelectable to lead the party but throwing stones from the sidelines and gaining power on the coattails of those they seek to undermine. Absolute Machiavellian scum bags.
Have a little read of this, and absorb FFShttps://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-top-40-h...
EddieSteadyGo said:
This point is definitely wrong.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes why generally reasonable people lose perspective when the topic is Brexit.
Sure, Brexit is a major change, and it is important, but it isn't *that* important. And it doesn't trump everything else.
And for the record, if I were an MP, I'd be supporting May's deal.
It was always going to be messy leaving the EU. But there will be plenty of opportunity for future governments to improve the relationship with the EU over the long term. And with the passage of time, the EU will be a lot less sensitive and will become much more pragmatic about agreeing future arrangements which are in their best interest.
OK, that's your point of view. Honestly, I wonder sometimes why generally reasonable people lose perspective when the topic is Brexit.
Sure, Brexit is a major change, and it is important, but it isn't *that* important. And it doesn't trump everything else.
And for the record, if I were an MP, I'd be supporting May's deal.
It was always going to be messy leaving the EU. But there will be plenty of opportunity for future governments to improve the relationship with the EU over the long term. And with the passage of time, the EU will be a lot less sensitive and will become much more pragmatic about agreeing future arrangements which are in their best interest.
For my part, I think that there is absolutely no prospect of the divisions healing if May is allowed to get away with this and that what I see as a Carthaginian Peace is no basis on which to build any good relationship with the EU.
I also think that Brexit is risking respect for democracy and the sovereignty of our Parliament. Not only am I essentially being told my vote is worthless because it is not the right sort, but that for an enormously large part of Parliament's competence will not be under Uk control but communicated by e-mail to us as and when determined by Brussels.
If you genuinely do fear Corbyn and his mob, people like you need to persuade a lot of people like me (and I'm in a marginal Labour/Tory seat) what stake we have in your vision of society because, frankly, at the moment I'd be happy to see the Tory establishment out of power for the rest of my natural...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff