Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

[biggbn]

bhstewie said:

biggbn said:

I had you pegged as much, much better than this.

Your first mistake

[bitchstewie]

loafer123 said:

The subjects are certainly linked, but you keep saying that they are “getting rid of people” - they aren’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61432498
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-w...

"Downing Street said it had not ruled out a recruitment freeze or compulsory redundancies as part of planned cuts."

"But when asked about compulsory redundancies, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “I’m not going to pre-empt specific measures.”"

Very simple to rule it out if it wasn't something they were considering.

[roger.mellie]

loafer123 said:

It isn’t BJ or JRM’s job to tell the civil service where to find efficiencies, that is for the civil service itself to manage.

What they are doing is saying the CS needs to find efficiencies and that, if they want to hire for vacancies, they will need to justify why they need the people.

By what metric have they decided the CS needs to find efficiencies and by what metric are they measuring the results? Just looks to me like getting head count off the government’s books rather than any targeted attempts to improve things.

[loafer123]

bhstewie said:

loafer123 said:

The subjects are certainly linked, but you keep saying that they are “getting rid of people” - they aren’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61432498
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-w...

"Downing Street said it had not ruled out a recruitment freeze or compulsory redundancies as part of planned cuts."

"But when asked about compulsory redundancies, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “I’m not going to pre-empt specific measures.”"

Very simple to rule it out if it wasn't something they were considering.

I haven’t ruled out staging a coup and placing annoying PH posters under house arrest with no internet, but it remains an option.

[captain_cynic]

roger.mellie said:

By what metric have they decided the CS needs to find efficiencies and by what metric are they measuring the results? Just looks to me like getting head count off the government’s books rather than any targeted attempts to improve things.

Just a government desperate to look like they're doing something without considering what it is they are doing.

That's par for the course with this government though.

[bitchstewie]

loafer123 said:

I haven’t ruled out staging a coup and placing annoying PH posters under house arrest with no internet, but it remains an option.

If it ever comes to pass I believe there's a few contributors who keep detailed records of posters names and past comments who may be able to help you

[andy_s]

biggbn said:

bhstewie said:

And if you want to pretend to think it's a co-incidence that it was published at the same time as an announcement on a Civil Service hiring freeze I have a bridge to sell you.

Aw Stewie, Stewie, I had you pegged as much, much better than this. The 'bridge to sell you' standard PH trope...argh, its like nails down a blackboard to me....

'There are no ninjas, there is no door'.

[biggbn]

andy_s said:

biggbn said:

bhstewie said:

And if you want to pretend to think it's a co-incidence that it was published at the same time as an announcement on a Civil Service hiring freeze I have a bridge to sell you.

Aw Stewie, Stewie, I had you pegged as much, much better than this. The 'bridge to sell you' standard PH trope...argh, its like nails down a blackboard to me....

'There are no ninjas, there is no door'.

Loved that analogy...

[roger.mellie]

biggbn said:

Loved that analogy...

No, “I had you pegged as much better than this” is not a superior comment to “I have a bridge to sell you”.

I didn’t get the analogy .

[biggbn]

roger.mellie said:

biggbn said:

Loved that analogy...

No, “I had you pegged as much better than this” is not a superior comment to “I have a bridge to sell you”.

I didn’t get the analogy .

Some things just grate. The bridge/magic beans one is used so much on PH, and it is an apt phrase to use on many occasions, but for me, it conjures up a particularly smug face on a particular kind of person. Others may disagree and that is the wonder of the English language, she is such a fickle mistress but I do love her so....

I do like Cummings' ninja analogy though.

[Electro1980]

blueg33 said:

loafer123 said:

blueg33 said:

Why don’t they have a ban on hiring without approval anyway? The private sector does.

I think the point is that the hiring approval would now be by exception and would need to be approved at a higher level, with a greater focus on justification.

That’s the way it’s always been in my career. I used to have to go up the ladder to hire and present a business case. Now people come to me and need to have a business case, especially if the hire is not in their approved budget

That’s the case everywhere, including in government. This, however, isn’t about management approval or going outside budget. This is about ministerial approval for every job.

[andy_s]

roger.mellie said:

biggbn said:

Loved that analogy...

No, “I had you pegged as much better than this” is not a superior comment to “I have a bridge to sell you”.

I didn’t get the analogy .

'Twas more about the original coincidental release of information, I think there is some truth to this, it's a part of politics, but I also think ascribing everything to it is sorta lazy thinking or a denial that the Brownian motion of the average day may play a bigger part - plus [media]self-selecting items out of a smorgasbord of choice.

The analogy basically talks to the façade of government, you can burrow a few layers deeper but it's probably fairly boring

[roger.mellie]

andy_s said:

'Twas more about the original coincidental release of information, I think there is some truth to this, it's a part of politics, but I also think ascribing everything to it is sorta lazy thinking or a denial that the Brownian motion of the average day may play a bigger part - plus [media]self-selecting items out of a smorgasbord of choice.

The analogy basically talks to the façade of government, you can burrow a few layers deeper but it's probably fairly boring

Thanks, I may be of the view that coincidences happen far too often when politicians are involved so call me skeptical on grand plans and more likely to believe in attempts at nudge theory.

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

loafer123 said:

The subjects are certainly linked, but you keep saying that they are “getting rid of people” - they aren’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61432498
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-w...

"Downing Street said it had not ruled out a recruitment freeze or compulsory redundancies as part of planned cuts."

"But when asked about compulsory redundancies, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “I’m not going to pre-empt specific measures.”"

Very simple to rule it out if it wasn't something they were considering.

Stewie in not appreciating context shocker.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

Stewie in not appreciating context shocker.

Murph leaping in to find reasons the Government messaging is clear and it's the media that has taken it out of context shocker.

"We aren't considering that."

It's a very simple one to put to bed.

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

Murph7355 said:

Stewie in not appreciating context shocker.

Murph leaping in to find reasons the Government messaging is clear and it's the media that has taken it out of context shocker.

"We aren't considering that."

It's a very simple one to put to bed.

So they're not getting rid of people, only considering it? Premature adjudication strikes again.

[768]

bhstewie said:

Murph leaping in to find reasons the Government messaging is clear and it's the media that has taken it out of context shocker.

"We aren't considering that."

It's a very simple one to put to bed.

Ha.

The media just struggle with clarity, they’ve never tried to sell anything. It’s all paid for by the well wishes of good people.

[Murph7355]

Electro1980 said:

That’s the case everywhere, including in government. This, however, isn’t about management approval or going outside budget. This is about ministerial approval for every job.

I've seen a number of private organisations do exactly the same (OK, not asking Government Ministers...but the top dog in the firm).

Always seemed like a sign that the management of the company either hadn't been given clear objectives and accountability, or couldn't be trusted with it. Neither being a good situation, but the solutions being different. The analogy applies to govt.

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

Murph leaping in to find reasons the Government messaging is clear and it's the media that has taken it out of context shocker.

"We aren't considering that."

It's a very simple one to put to bed.

Not so much the media - I haven't read much on this topic in the media as frankly I don't care that much. Slimming down the Civil Service? Bring it on.

More me loving seeing your usual taking snippets and totally misunderstanding what you're reading. But you're not alone. The country is choc-full of people like you.

[blueg33]

Murph7355 said:

Electro1980 said:

That’s the case everywhere, including in government. This, however, isn’t about management approval or going outside budget. This is about ministerial approval for every job.

I've seen a number of private organisations do exactly the same (OK, not asking Government Ministers...but the top dog in the firm).

Always seemed like a sign that the management of the company either hadn't been given clear objectives and accountability, or couldn't be trusted with it. Neither being a good situation, but the solutions being different. The analogy applies to govt.

The chances of ministers having a single clue about what people their department needs to run are zero.

So it will fall to management to make a business case and tell the minister how efficient it will make his department look.