Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
JagLover said:
The media would have been automatically after anyone trying to change the existing status quo.
So he could have an easy ride, and not achieve anything he wanted. Or try and change things and attract fanatical opposition.
I really don't think it's that simple unless you're suggesting the media are one group who all think and act the same.So he could have an easy ride, and not achieve anything he wanted. Or try and change things and attract fanatical opposition.
Try and change things, absolutely fine.
Just don't employ people like Sabinsky to try and do it.
El stovey said:
andy_s said:
Just on this little point, as it goes to the crux of the matter rather than the literal 'superforcaster' utility; the aim, I think, was to inject some radical thinking into a stultified organization - at the very start of the thread iirc there were some points on this aspect.
It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
Right but if you’re in charge of the new radical thinking department in your organisation, how radical are your ideas going to be if everyone you recruit is like you and you find them by their comments on your blog. It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
He wanted people skilled in lots of different areas, super forecasting was just one. It was pointed out by a few on here that what he’s likely to get are a load of mini Dominics which isn’t best for innovation. Isn’t he just creating a group think of his own.
Plus Cummings is also making it very hard to get anything done as he’s attacking all the institutions around him like parliament, the judiciary, government departments, the media etc designed to keep government in check.
It just looks like a bad way of going about creating change and keeping people you need onside. Now the media are out to get him and are scrutinising anyone he employs most of them will be easy game if they’re similar to
Ha - I get Cummings isn't known for his people skills, maybe a sort of example [lateral, not literally*] is like Gordon Ramsey going into a failing restaurant, busting balls and being obnoxious which is initially resisted but finally accepted. [I know, TV, not always successful after etc, but you get the drift].
But I'll tell you what, just the mention of him will have concentrated minds or made people think differently, already the 'resistance' is being weeded out anyway, perhaps pour encourager les autres will be a by product. Did you ever see Sir Humphrey? Quite accurate by all accounts. .
The results are perhaps less clear, I'm optimistic but then I'm no foxy forecaster…
[* - thnx for that whoever mentioned it.]
El stovey said:
....
“Boris do you agree with Andrew Sabisky’s views on women and black people’s IQ” It doesn’t look good. It’s not just the media, his own party were upset about it.
Some of his comments were even on Cummings own blog. Is Cummings just recruiting people like him that agree with him. That’s not really where new ways of thinking and innovative ideas come from.
Are his own party upset because of how it would look in the media though? I am seriously concerned about politicians who are massively concerned about what is printed in the Daily Mail and posted on Twitter. Neither of these (and equivalent outlets) are representative of the electorate IMO, as has been demonstrated in recent votes. Both are echo chambers, and politicians need to rise above reacting to them (which includes people being shut down because the Twitterati might get upset).“Boris do you agree with Andrew Sabisky’s views on women and black people’s IQ” It doesn’t look good. It’s not just the media, his own party were upset about it.
Some of his comments were even on Cummings own blog. Is Cummings just recruiting people like him that agree with him. That’s not really where new ways of thinking and innovative ideas come from.
Equally, is Cummings "advertising" the comments to demonstrate that he's up for hiring people with non-conformist views?
As I've noted a number of times, it's probably for the best that the guy has resigned. He noted that himself, and seemed from the words I read pretty pragmatic/sanguine about it. Also as I've noted, he's not someone I'd choose to go for a beer with. But I'm not convinced, from what I've read, that some of the conclusions that are being drawn are necessarily accurate. Context is key and I'm afraid I'm deeply suspicious about the way some of the commentary has been published.
The interview from 2018 was much more "this is the entire thing" in my eyes.
We need to be really careful about the influence and store we place in media channels. I strongly suspect this is part of the "point" Cummings might be making...
Murph7355 said:
Are his own party upset because of how it would look in the media though? I am seriously concerned about politicians who are massively concerned about what is printed in the Daily Mail and posted on Twitter. Neither of these (and equivalent outlets) are representative of the electorate IMO, as has been demonstrated in recent votes. Both are echo chambers, and politicians need to rise above reacting to them (which includes people being shut down because the Twitterati might get upset).
Equally, is Cummings "advertising" the comments to demonstrate that he's up for hiring people with non-conformist views?
As I've noted a number of times, it's probably for the best that the guy has resigned. He noted that himself, and seemed from the words I read pretty pragmatic/sanguine about it. Also as I've noted, he's not someone I'd choose to go for a beer with. But I'm not convinced, from what I've read, that some of the conclusions that are being drawn are necessarily accurate. Context is key and I'm afraid I'm deeply suspicious about the way some of the commentary has been published.
The interview from 2018 was much more "this is the entire thing" in my eyes.
We need to be really careful about the influence and store we place in media channels. I strongly suspect this is part of the "point" Cummings might be making...
Are you suggesting Cummings deliberately employed a bloke he knew would be vilified by the press, then leaked information about him so he had to resign, to show he’s looking to employ people with non conformist views?Equally, is Cummings "advertising" the comments to demonstrate that he's up for hiring people with non-conformist views?
As I've noted a number of times, it's probably for the best that the guy has resigned. He noted that himself, and seemed from the words I read pretty pragmatic/sanguine about it. Also as I've noted, he's not someone I'd choose to go for a beer with. But I'm not convinced, from what I've read, that some of the conclusions that are being drawn are necessarily accurate. Context is key and I'm afraid I'm deeply suspicious about the way some of the commentary has been published.
The interview from 2018 was much more "this is the entire thing" in my eyes.
We need to be really careful about the influence and store we place in media channels. I strongly suspect this is part of the "point" Cummings might be making...
Murph7355 said:
We need to be really careful about the influence and store we place in media channels. I strongly suspect this is part of the "point" Cummings might be making...
cummings should therefore set up a 'ministry of truth' so he can approve what the media are saying then.....andy_s said:
El stovey said:
andy_s said:
Just on this little point, as it goes to the crux of the matter rather than the literal 'superforcaster' utility; the aim, I think, was to inject some radical thinking into a stultified organization - at the very start of the thread iirc there were some points on this aspect.
It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
Right but if you’re in charge of the new radical thinking department in your organisation, how radical are your ideas going to be if everyone you recruit is like you and you find them by their comments on your blog. It's not particularly what he thinks but how he/they thinks and the principle of 'breaking group think' - the group being the Civil Service and the breaking done by injecting some different points of view than the inculcated 'we do it because we always have'.
He wanted people skilled in lots of different areas, super forecasting was just one. It was pointed out by a few on here that what he’s likely to get are a load of mini Dominics which isn’t best for innovation. Isn’t he just creating a group think of his own.
Plus Cummings is also making it very hard to get anything done as he’s attacking all the institutions around him like parliament, the judiciary, government departments, the media etc designed to keep government in check.
It just looks like a bad way of going about creating change and keeping people you need onside. Now the media are out to get him and are scrutinising anyone he employs most of them will be easy game if they’re similar to
Ha - I get Cummings isn't known for his people skills, maybe a sort of example [lateral, not literally*] is like Gordon Ramsey going into a failing restaurant, busting balls and being obnoxious which is initially resisted but finally accepted. [I know, TV, not always successful after etc, but you get the drift].
But I'll tell you what, just the mention of him will have concentrated minds or made people think differently, already the 'resistance' is being weeded out anyway, perhaps pour encourager les autres will be a by product. Did you ever see Sir Humphrey? Quite accurate by all accounts. .
The results are perhaps less clear, I'm optimistic but then I'm no foxy forecaster…
[* - thnx for that whoever mentioned it.]
El Stovey - when the whole construct is permeated by people who only want to do things the old way, the whole construct needs tackling. It's all so interrelated that trying to pick one off at a time will not work. "The Borg" will just crowd around and quell it.
As andy_s notes, you and the others commenting here (incl. me) don't have any idea at all who else he is selecting. We can't even say with any certainty at all that Sabisky actually was a "mini me". You guys are just projecting because you don't like Cummings (and/or don't understand/agree with his approach) and you don't like Sabisky. Both from what you've read in the press. That's the only real common thing between them that we seem to be able to be sure of
Do we as an electorate really *need* Civil Servants who are petrified of change and will do everything they can to frustrate it? Do we really *need* a media that is reactionary and prepared to decontextualise everything in order to sell copy?
Personally the answer to both is no. Those two things are a very large part of the reason why our society/country has been on a negative trajectory in many ways, and it needs to stop. It's at the heart, IMO, of why voting patterns have been thrown up in the air. People are fed up with a status quo that doesn't seem to be working for them. They can't readily articulate what it is that needs to change or why they feel like they do...but the way they vote demonstrates it clearly. This doesn't mean they are "stupid", "racist" or any of the other lazy accusations that get thrown their way either.
Will the change we get be positive? Only time will tell...but we should not be trying to stop it before it's even off the ground. Otherwise we'll be getting more of the same old grey. Thankfully the current majority means that should be unlikely. Though Boris cannot assume he has 10yrs (no matter what degree of muppetry Labour put up against him)...he has to get some positive results in 3-4yrs. If he (and Cummings) can do that, we are all going to be better off, and I suspect Boris will get several terms (I suspect being able to cock a snook at Cameron is really his only objective, so that will please him
).El stovey said:
Are you suggesting Cummings deliberately employed a bloke he knew would be vilified by the press, then leaked information about him so he had to resign, to show he’s looking to employ people with non conformist views?
Who knows.I suspect it more likely that he was aware this could happen and that either way was a win for him. So on he went.
You could see that sort of thing playing out from the day Boris became leader. Gamed.
isaldiri said:
cummings should therefore set up a 'ministry of truth' so he can approve what the media are saying then.....You appear to be joining the ranks of those with a way too simplistic sense of predicate logic...he doesn't support ExtremeA therefore he must support ExtremeB.
This may be useful when learning about logic. But it's wholly inadequate when people and life enter the mix.
isaldiri said:
Murph7355 said:
We need to be really careful about the influence and store we place in media channels. I strongly suspect this is part of the "point" Cummings might be making...
cummings should therefore set up a 'ministry of truth' so he can approve what the media are saying then.....Once you get past the BBC position on Cummings (approx halfway), the latter part is interesting:
Why is No 10 hiring ‘weirdos’?
Why is No 10 hiring ‘weirdos’?
Murph7355 said:
El stovey said:
Are you suggesting Cummings deliberately employed a bloke he knew would be vilified by the press, then leaked information about him so he had to resign, to show he’s looking to employ people with non conformist views?
Who knows.I suspect it more likely that he was aware this could happen and that either way was a win for him. So on he went.
You could see that sort of thing playing out from the day Boris became leader. Gamed.
What was the game plan for that one and how is it a "win"?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Murph7355 said:
El stovey said:
Are you suggesting Cummings deliberately employed a bloke he knew would be vilified by the press, then leaked information about him so he had to resign, to show he’s looking to employ people with non conformist views?
Who knows.I suspect it more likely that he was aware this could happen and that either way was a win for him. So on he went.
You could see that sort of thing playing out from the day Boris became leader. Gamed.
What was the game plan for that one and how is it a "win"?
Apparently it shows how the media have too much influence and that some Conservative MPs are giving into media/twitter pressure.
Murph7355 said:
That assumes he wants a totalitarian state. Which I don't believe he does.
You appear to be joining the ranks of those with a way too simplistic sense of predicate logic...he doesn't support ExtremeA therefore he must support ExtremeB.
This may be useful when learning about logic. But it's wholly inadequate when people and life enter the mix.
Just as you appear to be giving Cummings a free pass on anything and everything he does (plus accrediting him with a bizarre level of omniscience given your reply to el stovey) just because he's on 'your side' (Boris/brexit etc). You appear to be joining the ranks of those with a way too simplistic sense of predicate logic...he doesn't support ExtremeA therefore he must support ExtremeB.
This may be useful when learning about logic. But it's wholly inadequate when people and life enter the mix.
El stovey said:
My thoughts exactly.
Apparently it shows how the media have too much influence and that some Conservative MPs are giving into media/twitter pressure.
"Boris I've got a brilliant idea, there's this guy I know.. you're going to just love how this one pans out and makes us look..." Apparently it shows how the media have too much influence and that some Conservative MPs are giving into media/twitter pressure.
isaldiri said:
Murph7355 said:
That assumes he wants a totalitarian state. Which I don't believe he does.
You appear to be joining the ranks of those with a way too simplistic sense of predicate logic...he doesn't support ExtremeA therefore he must support ExtremeB.
This may be useful when learning about logic. But it's wholly inadequate when people and life enter the mix.
Just as you appear to be giving Cummings a free pass on anything and everything he does (plus accrediting him with a bizarre level of omniscience given your reply to el stovey) just because he's on 'your side' (Boris/brexit etc). You appear to be joining the ranks of those with a way too simplistic sense of predicate logic...he doesn't support ExtremeA therefore he must support ExtremeB.
This may be useful when learning about logic. But it's wholly inadequate when people and life enter the mix.
It doesn’t mean Cummings isn’t right to try and change some of how government is run, Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell both spoke of similar frustrations back in the late 90s but were unable to make the changes they wanted.
Cummings is a clever guy but not everything he does is going to be “a win”
isaldiri said:
Just as you appear to be giving Cummings a free pass on anything and everything he does (plus accrediting him with a bizarre level of omniscience given your reply to el stovey) just because he's on 'your side' (Boris/brexit etc).
You're entitled to read anything into anything of course. As are we all.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Hire someone and fire them on their first day because of their “racist, offensive and objectionable” comments (Kwasi Kwarteng's words).
What was the game plan for that one and how is it a "win"?
To be absolutely sure you'd have to ask Cummings. (I don't have him on speed dial and don't generally hang around with people who look like he does - there you go, I prove again I can be superficial too What was the game plan for that one and how is it a "win"?
).But...
- he hires him and no s
t storm is generated or it blows over : he "wins" because he has someone hired whose skillsets he thinks he needs- he hires him and there's a s
t storm whereby the guy is forced out, arguably over commentary that may have been taken totally out of context or is irrelevant to what he was hired to do, and Cummings gets "proof" that the system needs to be changed and justification (self or otherwise) to keep marching on. "Win" Cummings quite evidently isn't in this for the sake of his popularity. Scruffy/vagrant like as he looks, I think it's hard to argue that he feels change is necessary. I suspect most of us agree with the objective if not the methods.
btw, I'm not sure Kwasi's opinions count for any more (or less) than anyone else's. He appears to be being as reactionary as you guys
He noted in a radio interview he doesn't know the guy. I am pretty sure he is basing his opinion on the same materials people are on here. If he is, and despite the fact I think Sabisky resigning was likely for the best (for the reasons he set out himself), then that is a poor show.I guess the question is what is the size of the population of "super forecasters" (dumb name in and of itself as it makes people rail against "superiority", when that is not what it describes) who are prepared to work for government and have never said or written anything which is stupid, either genuinely so or when taken out of context.
I suspect that number is vanishingly small, so the logical conclusion is that you simply don't hire them.
The logical extension of that is....? That you end up with the same old same old
Should we really care that back room staff have posted misogynistic stuff at some point in their past (for this purpose I'll accept that is what genuinely happened)? Shouldn't we really be primarily concerned about the govt policy that emanates from these think tanks? The service that our Civil Service actually provides following a kick up the arse/being made to feel uncomfortable?
If govt policy comes out as utterly misogynistic (as the example) as a result, then we have a problem on our hands. But how long do you think the current govt would last in that event? They would rightly be castigated by me, you, Kwasi and no doubt many others.
Is hiring weirdos/misfits the best way to get the Civil Service to change? To get disruption in govt policy making? We've been stuck in a rut for so long now that I certainly think something radical needs doing. And I guess it was either this or let Momentum loose - I know which I prefer.
Smiler. said:
Once you get past the BBC position on Cummings (approx halfway), the latter part is interesting:
Why is No 10 hiring ‘weirdos’?
Very good. 2 points struck me, the small sound-bite of the journalists doorstepping Cummings; who looks like the idiots there? And the second half which makes this concept more relatable by referencing its use in sport.Why is No 10 hiring ‘weirdos’?
El stovey said:
Even the biggest Cummins fans can see that hiring this guy might not have been a great move.
It doesn’t mean Cummings isn’t right to try and change some of how government is run, Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell both spoke of similar frustrations back in the late 90s but were unable to make the changes they wanted.
Cummings is a clever guy but not everything he does is going to be “a win”
Exactly.It doesn’t mean Cummings isn’t right to try and change some of how government is run, Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell both spoke of similar frustrations back in the late 90s but were unable to make the changes they wanted.
Cummings is a clever guy but not everything he does is going to be “a win”
Nobody is ever "right" all the time (apart from my OH and my mum).
The only "side" that matters in this is the "side" that is "change". Current Labour knew it and wanted to do it a different way. That didn't work out so well for Corbyn at the poll booth.
So here we are.
It's nothing to do with loving Boris/Cummings. I want change. I want the pot stirred. This country has become lazy and fat. It's been happening for decades as bulls
t politicians fiddle around the edges, messing with unimportant st while Rome burns. In good part because we're led by the nose by cretinous media of all types.Huge deficit, huge national debt, educational standards falling in global terms, an NHS that is so far beyond its original remit with no logical checks and balances that it is killing itself etc etc etc. We have so much advantage in this country and we seem to want to throw it away at every turn. I don't want my kids to live in a country like that...so change needs to happen. It'll be painful for some, but that doesn't change the need.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff