This is Snegchui's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Snegchui's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Snegchui
London
Recent Activity
A huge growth in disrespect for all fuddy-duddy institutions that are not cool, a huge growth in individual ego. In John Major's time, it would have been discussed in terms of the Queen vs Governmnet. Today it would be discussed in terms of "Who doe that Liz think she is, sticking her oar in thwarting the will of the people?" Cool Britannia has a lot to answer for. I must admit that the most sickening thing through this election was calls to hearken to the voice of the people by all the Parties Labour first amongst criminals, mob-rule exhortations. Respect for rigorous argument and the educational systems to support that ability and the respect for it are a must. Disagree violently if you must, but do know on what grounds and be sure of your own mind, not led by rabble rousers.
1 reply
You make a very valid point. One of the hallmarks of the last administration was to rush things through without due thought or consultation, because we are in the Century of the fast moving Internet innit - slow ain't cool. Neither are bad decisions that return us to the century of the rabies-carrying fruitbat. I would like such a change exhaustively discussed and justified before being implemented. The message that the days of sofa-government are over would be most welcome.
1 reply
No, absolute fury. They were so expecting Theresa May they paid inflated prices for leopardskin handbags to dance around, and now all that personal money wasted. Much excitement and undignified language in the nearby hostelries.
Toggle Commented May 15, 2010 on A civil service mystery at CentreRight
1 reply
It looks like the coalition has hit a nerve. I wonder if they are flattering ConHome by imitation. The response is so fast it is quite unnerving. http://mydavidcameron.coM Anyway, having seen what myths are driving the frenzied, one can devise a strategy for countering them.
Toggle Commented May 15, 2010 on Saturday 15th May 2010 at ConservativeHome
1 reply
I was thinking, honourable ignoramus, the curry was more due to emigration than immigration. People are always liking the exotic, and so to find it usually go outside and bring it back. Khari = gravy and covers the multitude of the merchants' sins and the roadside farmer's desperation. I am particularly fond of Sri Lankan variations. But a good Malay goreng is well received and Thai is well-balanced. But at the end of the day, Italian done without pretension is just the business - quick, less cholesterol (I like that coconut milk but if you are not going to work it off bye bye arteries) and shaky-up nice - Clams Volgone down Bayswater in the non-chain Italian restaurant being very palatable. Now I usually find Lefties, being what they are, championing dishes on moral grounds, whereas the right votes with the tastebuds. So you do what you want to do, and I will eat better.
Toggle Commented May 14, 2010 on Ugly comments at thetorydiary
1 reply
Not surprised
Toggle Commented May 14, 2010 on Ugly comments at thetorydiary
1 reply
Open-minded? Unthinking I would say. UKIP - why? I will tell you SWP = UKIP on the circle. It is not politics, it is a mindset of exclusion rather than inclusion, Toryism is meritocratic, UKIP is Labour is exclude/include on random criteria, in UKIP on race, in Labour whaddahell?
1 reply
Give me all your money or I will shoot you. Oh you won't, then it's your fault you are dead. To respond to this "reasonable demand" would have proved a major distraction and boosted LibDems more than the lost tribe coming home.
1 reply
You want to stop banks larking about. Set an arbitrary value of a counterpart, both individually and collectively, and demand that the trade be signed off retrospectively by the Board with an explanation of what the trade(s) were achieving. One of the gems that came out of the credit crunch was that Sarbanes-Oxley or no Sarbanes-Oxley, many senior Board Members did not understand their trading tactics or strategies. That is unintentional fraud, as if asked at the time they expressed full confidence in such trading and gave it the nod. Pin it down at the coalface.
1 reply
I am considered eccentric in my circle for saying that Scargill could easily have won the strike he led by a simple rewording of the strike resolution. However, I think like a lot of revolutionaries, he considered negotiation just so unsatisfactory, and so elected for a worthy struggle. Only problem was in the end he lost, both to the immediate detriment of his members and to the long term detriment of the country. Civil wars always leave long running scars. There are very good things that came out of Thatcher winning that confrontation, but it was at a high cost of polarisation and bitterness that endures to this day making the politics of the day visceral rather than intellectual. And unfortunately visceral thinking is about staying in control, not addressing issues. Remind you of anybody? Tony Woodley, in the brief speech I saw him make, came across as driven by his ego rather than the concerns of his members. That is not a good omen for resolution. Bob Crowe is very similar. Any effective resolution is going to have to successfully bypass those egos. Does the Tory government in waiting have people with those skills?
1 reply
Not necessarily the wages you work for : Statutory Minimum Redundancy: * Your weekly pay, up to a legal limit, revised as at 1st October 2009 to £380.00. The amount of redundancy pay is calculated as: * Half a week’s pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22 * One week’s pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41. * One and a half weeks’ pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+
1 reply
I would be careful in playing this one. In politics, as important as what you do, is how you do it - or in the case of the Tories how you did it last time. I believe this issue to be a very nasty poisoned chalice. The PCS is up in arms about redundancy pay losses - not earnings per se as I understand. Added to their initial alarm and where they are getting surprising support is that the Govt did : "the union pointed to the fact the government had denied MPs a vote on the changes and instead relied on an arcane parliamentary procedure to avoid any debate, discussion or vote." So the Govt is keen to bring these changes forward without due process of consultation. Another little Iraq. Now until recently the Tories looked a near shoe-in. Whatever the unions believe now about Labour, the entrenched aversion to trusting the Tories is I believe greater still. And guess what, that aversion has been given a good stir up. Almost wish Labour gets the hung parliament and then hung on their own petard. The issue and the well-grounded fear of the Union is that post this election is going to be a once in a lifetime efficiency (firing) spree no matter who gets in, so sticking out for current redundancy payments rather than any reduction is a no-brainer from their point of view. Introduce rail-roading secrecy and you create an even more toxic mix. I know the Tories have been trying to rebuild bridges with Unions, with some notable failures with the like of Unite. I also believe very frank transparency will be the best approach as the levels of trust are so low. How do you play this particular confrontation out? Very carefully and honestly. Get it wrong and you won't see Tories back in Govt for 3 generations. So the question is do you preserve jobs by re-allocating hordes of back office to the front-lines and getting the shock of that to get them to retire voluntarily, improve training so you can offset expensive consultants being let go on no terms of redundancy, up the internal standards on attendance and performance and make it easier to let go that way? Perhaps there are opportunities here rather than the traditional stand-offs. Keeping people in work but making that work more productive may be a way forward. Labour's way forward has been to offset costs by lowering training and standards and cover by "experienced" consultants. You now have a Civil Service workforce which is quite rightly very hesitant about playing in the private sector, whereas until 25 years ago a Civil Servant was regarded as a good employee - well-trained and competent.
1 reply
There is always the problem with self-reinforcing communities , which the internet does more effectively. I support internet activity and believe transparency is enhanced by it. People see what they want to see, so having reinforcing sites which are authoritarian works for some - so a comfort zone is easily achieved. But I think the mood of the current electorate is "I have the means to check and so I will" There may well be prejudices which prevail - left and right - but the important point is that core prejudices will be tested at least once. What that means is that the clarity and consistency and integrity of a position (Oh Graeme Archer) will be examined. That means no laziness or loose assumptions. It means really back to basic exposition of principle. Brown can be torn apart, but tear apart New Labour, which was not Brown's project and then be more enduring in the success.
1 reply
What do you want them to do? Break treaties? Even the Soviets honoured to the letter treaties they made as a State - eveb if the spirit was well broken. Angola : Fish half and half but your half is head and tail , our half are the fillets. A pledge to look at Europe means you deal with what you have which means you get in there and stop further encroachment. It does not mean you unilaterally throw your hands up. That is Rhodesian politics which led to Mugabe and how good has that been? And before the yelling and shrieking starts inappropriate analogy: The analogy is this you break treaties, then treaties can be broke against you and the rule of law is totally disrespected and then anarchy. It hurts sometimes to honour obligations that the idiots before you committed you as a nation-state to, but honour them you must, It does not stop you renogotiating them.
1 reply
I caught bits and pieces of the speech. So from that perspective and some posts above: (1) Govt being the cause of problems: Murphy's Law as practised ad rigorem and infinitum by the Dementor : 10p tax and Pension reform. Regional Development Agencies. Frequent reaction without joined up thinking : Brian Haw, Alastair Campbell on a sweeping staircase saying "I never lied - see I as your King of the truth said so". (2) Patriotic Duty: Be careful that could come back to bite. (3)Six pledges are good. I tell you though, for the life of me I cannot understand why Labour's failure to hold the referendum they promised is the Conservative's fault. What the blazes is going on here? I am getting of the opinion that those harping on about Conservative betrayal are Labour windup merchants. I take the line if was in charge before signing would have had areferndu, after signing abide by the committments but seek to influence a change. (4) Allied to point 3, when the going gets tough, despite popular opinion, the real tough do not get going - they dig in , sit out the barbs and arrows of hostile fortune and when they are exhausted come out and clump them into next week. Brown is doing this well: Positive sound bite, Labour is your home, positive sound bite Labour is your home. It may annoy, but see it as it is. Undermine the soundbite and take it out. Today Cameron went for team. I suggest in clumping Labour, he also concentrates on team Labour - focussing on Brown - even though he is a puppet-master incarnate - is not good politics. Sink the project not the man.
1 reply
I would ask why one person is not doing the 4 roles. The Head of Patient Services, with a small admin backup, could deal with representations from then Patients' Associations who are probably duplicating the work of the Patients' Experience Manager to a large degree. The other two titles I do not see as being full time roles. There may well be a heavy startup resource need, but ongoing - if done properly - should be part-time. Take out the performance reviewsa nd management overhead of managing 3 unnecessary managers and I suggest you would have a quieter more cost efficient services. Before the yelling and shrieking starts, the ED and SC%PC are more efficiently controlled centrally and rolled out locally. If you insist on having local centres for these functions, you will be duplicating policy making and have a greater chance of delivering post-code outcomes. There is an argument that local responsiveness is undermined, but I suggest that if I pay someone £40,000 a year and I keep the number of those jobs to a minimum, the holders of those jobs will more likely be competent.
1 reply
Rein.
1 reply
I think go for transparency and trust. Enumerate the lies of Iraq, the Sure Start and World Financial Crisis being responsible for UK economic mess. State that will strengthen Parliament so that Executive is held properly account and "dodgy dossiers" will be caught. State the days of sofa govt are over and highlight the publication of Govt Contracts over £25,000 is just a start to empower the public voice. A lot of the things Labour has misachieved, there's a word for you, are due to the facts of secrecy and bypassing due diligence on legislation. This has meant that joined-up Govt has in fact been extremely disjointed Govt that has no strategic sense of direction - tends to happen when you don't canvass widely and know what you are discarding on grounds of logic rather than just saying you are not listening to them. I think the days of dictating to an electorate are over. We may moan about educational standards, but I think the level of educational attainment combined with the open and easy ability to verify or rebut assertions by using the internet, mean that Honesty Pays is going to be more true than it has been in any other election we have had. Glib, lazy assertions and/or unfounded personal attacks have the potential to attract a high price. Strict control of the message's integrity will be more important than ever - no more 54% slip ups.
1 reply
We shall be Prudence's pooper-scoopers. We will address the deficit when we have the true accounting of the books. When we do the books, double-entry will be done as it should be, not the same figure entered twice in the same column. We shall be transparent and accountable, we will be open to discussion in Parliament and the country unlike the sofa cabals of Labour.
1 reply
00000100
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2010 on Saturday 6th February 2010 at ConservativeHome
1 reply
Unlike Techno Mystic, I have a perception that Michael Howard being accused of inciting people to attack immigrants by his policies during a terrestrial TV Open Forum did further dent Conservative credibility as a party of One Nation. This despite all the furore the previous year of the resignation of Beverley Hughes over precisely the issues that are vexing people. The lesson learned is that Immigration covers about 6 different categories of potential immigrants and each category needs to be dealt with separately and with policies directed at each category. This can be done in a professional environment, but on the doorstep it is just one topic. The art of the doorstepper is to identify which category is being discussed and address that category, and not get sucked into a one answer fits all argument.
1 reply
Much of a muchness. Enver Hodge and Demetrious Panton and the Minister for Children affair would incline me to the view that both are as bad as each other. Hearing Hodger on the threat of the BNP is to hear one bunch of crypto-fascists slag off another. Labour's persecution of critics of "The Truth" qualifies them for this rating.
1 reply
A valid point , made extremely poorly. I really wish this poster would write when sober, and not in the throes of excess sentimentality under the influence of stimulants natural or manmade. The one glaring omission in the piece is that Blair and his cohorts are perceived as having lied on a massive scale when justifying the war and then the committing to war. The end result is that he dragged a divided nation behind him. He then compounded this by throwing his hands up in the air at the ungrateful nature of the invaded when the lack of planning in rebuilding civil society became apparent. These two factors have betrayed the nation, betrayed the trust in politicians, government and ourselves as a society. Thus making it almost impossible to take firm action in the future when and if it is required. Blair has made it impossible for successors to have the same range of options and by the lies and spin poisoned the wells of democracy and liberty. He is a wicked man and a living symbol of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He is wicked, in that having come to the conclusion that something was desirable and morally justifiable, he set about using immoral operational actions to achieve that aim. My dislike for this is based on the opinion that I believe Saddam would have made the hubris to make the mistake that condemned himself in the eyes of the world. Instead of the overthrow and death of a tyrannical Saddam leading to a healing of wounds and setting an opportunity for liberal democracy in the region, the tactics of Blair have led to a widening of tensions, religious and political, an alienation of a significant number of youth with political society across the whole spectrum of youth and a rapid rise in the cynicism and moral relativism the author claims to deride. Bah humbug to this article which started promisingly and then degenerated into such pap.
1 reply
There is the practical worry that if there are different starting times allowed, then in a close run election, late starters may be tempted to unduly influence their own count in favour of their desired winners. Whether it be on the night or the next day, all should start at the same time. If it starts the next day, a representative from each party contesting the constituency should maintain vigil over the collected boxes. And out with optional postal voting. You vote by post if you know you will not be in the constituency on the day, not because you can't be bothered to turn out on the day.
1 reply
I believe Ken is merely saying more haste less speed. Let your spending ministers get control of their departments, consult and then deliver joined up targeted budgets. Making cutting decisions when you don't really know where you are, just to please the papers, increases your chances of making mistakes. Perhaps also what Ken, from the perspective of age and experience rather than political bias, is saying is country before ego and career headlines.
1 reply