Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
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.
Personally I've no issue with hiring weirdos and/or misfits to try and induce some appetite for change.I've also nothing in particular against Cummings as he is employed to do a job and seems to be doing it.
Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
Where I struggle is when people are looking for all kinds of "justifications" if that's the word to use that seem to steer awfully close to defending this chap and that almost give the impression his sort are a price worth paying if we want political change.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Personally I've no issue with hiring weirdos and/or misfits to try and induce some appetite for change.
Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
.
Correct, and you only have to look at labours antisemitic stance to see the parallels, in their case however it goes way deeper than just one or two unpleasant characters, I feel theyve been let off way more lightly in the press though.Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Murph7355 said:
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.
Personally I've no issue with hiring weirdos and/or misfits to try and induce some appetite for change.I've also nothing in particular against Cummings as he is employed to do a job and seems to be doing it.
Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
Where I struggle is when people are looking for all kinds of "justifications" if that's the word to use that seem to steer awfully close to defending this chap and that almost give the impression his sort are a price worth paying if we want political change.
I've worked with all sorts of bellends who had weird views and proclivaties (I imagine many people who I've worked with might put me in the same bucket
). Ultimately I only ever judged them (at least in a work context) on their results. I really hope that is what is going to happen in government from now on and that people won't be rewarded just for showing up.Murph7355 said:
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.
Dont Panic said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Personally I've no issue with hiring weirdos and/or misfits to try and induce some appetite for change.
Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
.
Correct, and you only have to look at labours antisemitic stance to see the parallels, in their case however it goes way deeper than just one or two unpleasant characters, I feel theyve been let off way more lightly in the press though.Occam's razor suggests they accidentally hired someone with some odious views and they got rid of him once they got made aware.
It can happen.
.
But equally I don't see people here rushing to say "Hmm but they do have some some really good ideas, maybe we should listen to them" whenever someone makes the news because they've been kicked out of Labour for something related to antisemitism.
The colour of the rosette really shouldn't matter with these things.
longblackcoat said:
So what is it that you want to see? What tangible changes would you make?
If I may answer that, I'd like to see an end to silly cultures such as blowing the remaining budget at the end of a financial year due to risk of getting less next year. It's stupid & needs to end.longblackcoat said:
Murph7355 said:
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.
Spending needs to be cut still. Structural spending only to increase. Comms networks and a unified transport infrastructure would be good places to start. Ultimately I'd like to see the deficit eradicated.
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
We can stop fecking about with schools too in terms of curriculums. Re-check where we've gone wrong on them, re-set and away we go. Grammar schools are fine by me. More input into helping the kids who are stronger academically to excel, ensuring there are suitable alternatives for those who aren't (apprenticeships etc...but in industries we need investment in - see later). No fees for STEM and medical related university courses. Fees for all others set to cover those costs.
On the spending theme...triple lock pension binned. Accelerate the state funded retirement age increases. Get it up to 75. Privately funded pension can kick in where the owner of it wants. Max pension pot to be index linked as a minimum. More if we want to really encourage self sufficiency later in life. Means test all age related benefits. Slim down govt (600MPs first. Then 500). Move it to Birmingham or Leeds or even Glasgow (to annoy WJK). Lower/eradicate MPs expenses - purpose built parliament with purpose built accommodation to go with it. No more second homes bulls
t etc. They can claim no more and no less than any other employee in the country as set by HMRC.Benefits to be on the down low. Safety net not comfort blanket etc. Those who genuinely need help to get more, paid for by removing from the feckless. Universal credit and then erosion is one method. Personally I'd stop 99% of cash benefits. If you need a "service" then it's vanilla and paid for centrally and you take it or leave it. Housing, food, clothing, transport etc etc. You want more, education is free and now geared to get you into forward looking jobs no matter how you are academically. Then get a job. And if all you can do is clean toilets, fill your boots (obviously not literally).
Flip side, continue to lower corp tax to encourage more business here (business doesn't really pay it anyway. Couldn't care less what CT Starbucks pay.
What about VAT, NI, what tax do employees pay etc etc). And think long and hard about what industries we should be investing in here and get the subsidies rolling. Get some of our genuine entrepreneurs to help decide on these things, and feed it from education all the way through to business start up. And allow regional differences in company taxation/subsidies to encourage more businesses away from London/the South East.
And this isn't even the controversial stuff
Murph7355 said:
There are some clues in my closing paragraph. There are plenty of you on this thread who seem to be able to identify the minutest characteristics of an individual from posts that are out of context etc...I'm sure you can work it out from a bonafide post in full view in all its glory
Spending needs to be cut still. Structural spending only to increase. Comms networks and a unified transport infrastructure would be good places to start. Ultimately I'd like to see the deficit eradicated.
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
We can stop fecking about with schools too in terms of curriculums. Re-check where we've gone wrong on them, re-set and away we go. Grammar schools are fine by me. More input into helping the kids who are stronger academically to excel, ensuring there are suitable alternatives for those who aren't (apprenticeships etc...but in industries we need investment in - see later). No fees for STEM and medical related university courses. Fees for all others set to cover those costs.
On the spending theme...triple lock pension binned. Accelerate the state funded retirement age increases. Get it up to 75. Privately funded pension can kick in where the owner of it wants. Max pension pot to be index linked as a minimum. More if we want to really encourage self sufficiency later in life. Means test all age related benefits. Slim down govt (600MPs first. Then 500). Move it to Birmingham or Leeds or even Glasgow (to annoy WJK). Lower/eradicate MPs expenses - purpose built parliament with purpose built accommodation to go with it. No more second homes bullst etc. They can claim no more and no less than any other employee in the country as set by HMRC.
Benefits to be on the down low. Safety net not comfort blanket etc. Those who genuinely need help to get more, paid for by removing from the feckless. Universal credit and then erosion is one method. Personally I'd stop 99% of cash benefits. If you need a "service" then it's vanilla and paid for centrally and you take it or leave it. Housing, food, clothing, transport etc etc. You want more, education is free and now geared to get you into forward looking jobs no matter how you are academically. Then get a job. And if all you can do is clean toilets, fill your boots (obviously not literally).
Flip side, continue to lower corp tax to encourage more business here (business doesn't really pay it anyway. Couldn't care less what CT Starbucks pay.
What about VAT, NI, what tax do employees pay etc etc). And think long and hard about what industries we should be investing in here and get the subsidies rolling. Get some of our genuine entrepreneurs to help decide on these things, and feed it from education all the way through to business start up. And allow regional differences in company taxation/subsidies to encourage more businesses away from London/the South East.
And this isn't even the controversial stuff
You dangerous radical! I'd like to see ministers and civil servants responsible for failed procurement and infrastructure projects to be put in stocks on Parliament Square so we can throw rotten fruit at them; a week for every hundred million wasted.Spending needs to be cut still. Structural spending only to increase. Comms networks and a unified transport infrastructure would be good places to start. Ultimately I'd like to see the deficit eradicated.
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
We can stop fecking about with schools too in terms of curriculums. Re-check where we've gone wrong on them, re-set and away we go. Grammar schools are fine by me. More input into helping the kids who are stronger academically to excel, ensuring there are suitable alternatives for those who aren't (apprenticeships etc...but in industries we need investment in - see later). No fees for STEM and medical related university courses. Fees for all others set to cover those costs.
On the spending theme...triple lock pension binned. Accelerate the state funded retirement age increases. Get it up to 75. Privately funded pension can kick in where the owner of it wants. Max pension pot to be index linked as a minimum. More if we want to really encourage self sufficiency later in life. Means test all age related benefits. Slim down govt (600MPs first. Then 500). Move it to Birmingham or Leeds or even Glasgow (to annoy WJK). Lower/eradicate MPs expenses - purpose built parliament with purpose built accommodation to go with it. No more second homes bulls
t etc. They can claim no more and no less than any other employee in the country as set by HMRC.Benefits to be on the down low. Safety net not comfort blanket etc. Those who genuinely need help to get more, paid for by removing from the feckless. Universal credit and then erosion is one method. Personally I'd stop 99% of cash benefits. If you need a "service" then it's vanilla and paid for centrally and you take it or leave it. Housing, food, clothing, transport etc etc. You want more, education is free and now geared to get you into forward looking jobs no matter how you are academically. Then get a job. And if all you can do is clean toilets, fill your boots (obviously not literally).
Flip side, continue to lower corp tax to encourage more business here (business doesn't really pay it anyway. Couldn't care less what CT Starbucks pay.
What about VAT, NI, what tax do employees pay etc etc). And think long and hard about what industries we should be investing in here and get the subsidies rolling. Get some of our genuine entrepreneurs to help decide on these things, and feed it from education all the way through to business start up. And allow regional differences in company taxation/subsidies to encourage more businesses away from London/the South East.
And this isn't even the controversial stuff
Murph7355 said:
There are some clues in my closing paragraph. There are plenty of you on this thread who seem to be able to identify the minutest characteristics of an individual from posts that are out of context etc...I'm sure you can work it out from a bonafide post in full view in all its glory
Spending needs to be cut still. Structural spending only to increase. Comms networks and a unified transport infrastructure would be good places to start. Ultimately I'd like to see the deficit eradicated.
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
We can stop fecking about with schools too in terms of curriculums. Re-check where we've gone wrong on them, re-set and away we go. Grammar schools are fine by me. More input into helping the kids who are stronger academically to excel, ensuring there are suitable alternatives for those who aren't (apprenticeships etc...but in industries we need investment in - see later). No fees for STEM and medical related university courses. Fees for all others set to cover those costs.
On the spending theme...triple lock pension binned. Accelerate the state funded retirement age increases. Get it up to 75. Privately funded pension can kick in where the owner of it wants. Max pension pot to be index linked as a minimum. More if we want to really encourage self sufficiency later in life. Means test all age related benefits. Slim down govt (600MPs first. Then 500). Move it to Birmingham or Leeds or even Glasgow (to annoy WJK). Lower/eradicate MPs expenses - purpose built parliament with purpose built accommodation to go with it. No more second homes bullst etc. They can claim no more and no less than any other employee in the country as set by HMRC.
Benefits to be on the down low. Safety net not comfort blanket etc. Those who genuinely need help to get more, paid for by removing from the feckless. Universal credit and then erosion is one method. Personally I'd stop 99% of cash benefits. If you need a "service" then it's vanilla and paid for centrally and you take it or leave it. Housing, food, clothing, transport etc etc. You want more, education is free and now geared to get you into forward looking jobs no matter how you are academically. Then get a job. And if all you can do is clean toilets, fill your boots (obviously not literally).
Flip side, continue to lower corp tax to encourage more business here (business doesn't really pay it anyway. Couldn't care less what CT Starbucks pay.
What about VAT, NI, what tax do employees pay etc etc). And think long and hard about what industries we should be investing in here and get the subsidies rolling. Get some of our genuine entrepreneurs to help decide on these things, and feed it from education all the way through to business start up. And allow regional differences in company taxation/subsidies to encourage more businesses away from London/the South East.
And this isn't even the controversial stuff
est-ce que vous mr macron? Spending needs to be cut still. Structural spending only to increase. Comms networks and a unified transport infrastructure would be good places to start. Ultimately I'd like to see the deficit eradicated.
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
We can stop fecking about with schools too in terms of curriculums. Re-check where we've gone wrong on them, re-set and away we go. Grammar schools are fine by me. More input into helping the kids who are stronger academically to excel, ensuring there are suitable alternatives for those who aren't (apprenticeships etc...but in industries we need investment in - see later). No fees for STEM and medical related university courses. Fees for all others set to cover those costs.
On the spending theme...triple lock pension binned. Accelerate the state funded retirement age increases. Get it up to 75. Privately funded pension can kick in where the owner of it wants. Max pension pot to be index linked as a minimum. More if we want to really encourage self sufficiency later in life. Means test all age related benefits. Slim down govt (600MPs first. Then 500). Move it to Birmingham or Leeds or even Glasgow (to annoy WJK). Lower/eradicate MPs expenses - purpose built parliament with purpose built accommodation to go with it. No more second homes bulls
t etc. They can claim no more and no less than any other employee in the country as set by HMRC.Benefits to be on the down low. Safety net not comfort blanket etc. Those who genuinely need help to get more, paid for by removing from the feckless. Universal credit and then erosion is one method. Personally I'd stop 99% of cash benefits. If you need a "service" then it's vanilla and paid for centrally and you take it or leave it. Housing, food, clothing, transport etc etc. You want more, education is free and now geared to get you into forward looking jobs no matter how you are academically. Then get a job. And if all you can do is clean toilets, fill your boots (obviously not literally).
Flip side, continue to lower corp tax to encourage more business here (business doesn't really pay it anyway. Couldn't care less what CT Starbucks pay.
What about VAT, NI, what tax do employees pay etc etc). And think long and hard about what industries we should be investing in here and get the subsidies rolling. Get some of our genuine entrepreneurs to help decide on these things, and feed it from education all the way through to business start up. And allow regional differences in company taxation/subsidies to encourage more businesses away from London/the South East.
And this isn't even the controversial stuff
fblm said:
You dangerous radical! I'd like to see ministers and civil servants responsible for failed procurement and infrastructure projects to be put in stocks on Parliament Square so we can throw rotten fruit at them; a week for every hundred million wasted.
Oh cmon. It'll be all ok when it's the associates of Boris getting those failed procurement projects (see garden bridge amongst others) rather than others....
Murph7355 said:
I'd freeze NHS spending and get it under a cross party review with the ultimate aim to have it run by medical professionals against a pre-set budget (not one they influence. One set by what we can afford). The medical professionals then decide what it can be spent on. No postcode lottery either. Standard menu nationwide.
Apologies - this is completely O/T but hy would being a medical professional make them good at budget management? I spent the first 4 years of my accountancy career working for the NHS. I wouldn't trust a Doctor with a budget any more than a Builder, Painter, or Nuclear engineer. Being ultra clever doesn't automatically make them good budget managers. They have the same prejudices that mere mortals do. I'll give you some examples;- Buying a specific brand of theatre equipment because that's what they had always used previously (even when the Hospital has good equipment already in place but they cant be bothered to learn how to use it
- the Orthopaedics Director refusing to let A&E admissions onto the Orthopaedics ward because he hated the A&E Director's guts
- refusing to use the NHS approved supplier list for standard products
- doing private work using NHS equipment
- buying equipment from suppliers who subsequently invite them on training conferences to Singapore, Dubai, and Barbados
Just realised that all of the above points are negative. On a positive note Doctors care about their patients and want them to have the best treatment possible. That doesn't make budget management easy.
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?
Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
No but do you think Cummings mate is cat 2 or 3, noting his interest in peddling known lies about IQ, race and immigration policy? Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a bit cat 1/2.
Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.
Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.
I think it’s perfectly clear you want to make Sabinsky seem as harmless as Sweden.
Which I find pretty disgusting, but you cling to it if you want.
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?
Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
No but do you think Cummings mate is cat 2 or 3, noting his interest in peddling known lies about IQ, race and immigration policy? Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
The evidence suggests he is cat 3, but is trying to sound a bit cat 1/2.
Let's not forget Sweden were doing cat 2 until very recently.
Cat 1 is where the potential gold is.
I think it’s perfectly clear you want to make Sabinsky seem as harmless as Sweden.
Which I find pretty disgusting, but you cling to it if you want.
Since then, all I've seen is that he supports contraception to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancy at young ages - nothing relating to race in that.
In which case, it's far from "category 2", which is sterilisation... Whilst you're, as per your own quote, suggesting he wants people killed that don't conform to a genetic 'ideal'.
Nice to see you think Sweden's action's were harmless - I f
king don't, and nor do they now. Was an abhorrent strategy, but gets your support by 'your words'... Sabinsky said:
One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.
Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sabinsky said:
One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.
Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been dis
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff