Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almoswould have won.
Absolute rubbish. ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene.
ISIS as the al-Nusra Front were well established in Syria by early 2012 - more than 18 months before the UK parliament voted against intervention and the Free Syrian Army was already collapsing by early 2013.
The idea that Western intervention would have helped anyone but the extremists in the opposition is fanciful.
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the country
I didn't say they did run it now like they did before. I asked if they were in effective control of parts of it. 17 years in, is that a positive sign for the country? It hardly seems so, apparently they have been gaining strength in the last few years.
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11
Afghanistan is still in chaos, still being bombed, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still a potent menace. This after we spent sixty bazillion dollars "defeating" them.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almoswould have won.
Absolute r al-Nusra
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the country
I didn't say they did run it now like th last few years.
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11
The 'so what' is that that is about the best example of intervention, and it is a deeply flawed one which is very very far from an unqualified success.
I happen to agree that, on balance, it probably was worth it, and I have been making the point we cannot and should not rule out intervening sometimes, as doing nothing might be worse than another Afghanistan sometimes. But the caution is understandable, and usually doing nothing is probably best.
Rumours: Most of the constituencies of Budapest are won by opposition. Fidesz-KDNP (EPP) won by landslide in other counties. #Választás2018 #április8 #Országgyűlés #Orbán #KarácsonyGergely #VonaGábor #Hungary #HungaryElections
close to a truism
remember - most of the votes have now been counted, they just can't release the results...
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
Assad is a murdering bastard, and Putin an autocratig thug, etc etc but in what way would bombing Assad's Syrian forces, and thus enabling jihadists like ISIS to win that war, have benefited us? Or indeed Syrians?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The least worst is Assad winning, at least that means a chance of stability, under a ruthless dictatorship. That is the tragic truth of the matter.
ISIS were an almoswould have won.
Absolute r al-Nusra
". ISIS were already well established and the 'mainstream rebels' were already practically extinct by the time we were debating whether or not to intervene. "
To use your own phrase, 'absolute rubbish'. t's led us to where we are today.
He was losing but not to the FSA or anyone we would have considered moderate. Well, actually the Kurds were moderate but they were only interested in protecting their part of Syria. The radicals were already e been any different?
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power
Are not the Taliban in effective control in many parts of Afghanistan still, with a presence in most parts of the country?
The Taliban do not now run Afghanistan no, as they did in 2001, though they still have a presence in much of the country
I didn't say they did run it now like th last few years.
So what. Had we not intervened in Afghanistan the Taliban would still control the whole country, never mind parts of it and Bin Laden would still be alive and freely operating in the country with Al Qaeda plotting yet more terror attacks against the West as he did pre 9/11
The 'so what' is that that is about the best example of intervention, and it is a deeply flawed one which is very very far from an unqualified success.
I happen to agree that, on balrobably best.
After 3000 westerners, including Britons, were killed on 9/11 in a terrorist attack plotted from Afghanistan doing nothing there was not an option as I think we are agreed.
Afghanistan has always been tribal and tough terrain, the key strategic objective should always have been to remove Bin Laden not turn it into a liberal nirvana
This would seem to support my Plymouth minicab anecdote. Swing voters are coming round to the idea of Theresa May - "doing her best", "she's alright", "compared to the others she seems OK".
Corbyn is reviled.
Unless Brexit is a nuclear explosion, then she now has a very good chance of lasting until 2022. By which time, one hopes, she will have improved her campaigning skills, and she will - one hopes - still be facing a 70-something Jezbollah Corbyn Esq.
The conservatives are a broken flush. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is no longer cool. Wealth and income inequality in the UK has reached ridiculous levels. This fact alone will almost certainly mean that Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM.
Next month we go to the polls here in London. The Tories will be skewered in our sophisticated progressive city.
The last few words of your post - What's the murder rate this year ?
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
I might be wrong but I've heard it suggested 'for the many not the few' was used by Blair before Corbyn.
Boris has high intelligence but also charisma and it is quite rare to find the two together
Boris is an extremely smart man who makes oddly dumb decisions (out of laziness, distractedness or a juvenile desire to provoke).
He would only be a good prime minister in a time of real desperate crisis, a charismatic Churchill figure. He is not a Thatcher who could grind through the detail and transform an economy, which is what we are going to need post-Brexit.
So his time is now unlikely to arrive. I suspect the next Tory leader will be relatively unknown, as TMay will now probably last to 2022.
Certainly May seems to be doing better than any other at the moment
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
Probably. As a low level grunt, it sometimes seems to me that some very able people in high positions nevertheless over estimate their ability to tell how much an organisation can take. I equate it to people trimming fingernails with a machete - they might judge it just right, but they also won't know if they judged it wrong until blood starts coming out of the stumps.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
Just read the v.brief report on BBC, quite pleased as I'm a Ducatisti. What were the shennanigans?
I fast forwarded through it, but it looks like the man on pole Jack Miller gambled on slicks. By the time they did the formation lap, the rest of the field saw that he'd made the right call so they all went into the pits and forced the start to be delayed. They were allowed to switch to slicks but had to start nine rows (50m) behind Miller which was an absolutely farcical sight.
Ah, thanks. Looks like the boy Miller couldn't take advantage.
Incidentally Murali, don't be fooled by Johnson's carefully crafted folksy and bumbling persona. He undoubtedly is highly intelligent. He speaks several languages, knows the international scene quite well, and has the ability to manipulate people through humour. That's presumably why May put him at the Foreign Office. It's also why he won a top scholarship at Balliol College Oxford.
At the same time he is also arrogant, reckless, dishonest, self-important and lazy. These attributes mean he doesn't really have the ability to master complex briefs and deal with situations beyond the superficial. At the same time, by simplifying them to the point of absurdity he makes messages that really cut through. It made him an excellent journalist and makes him a formidable political campaigner.
He is very similar in many crucial ways to George W. Bush, who took a First at Harvard and posed as a clown/redneck. And like most people who make others laugh, they underestimated him and he narrowly beat the Democrats twice. See Johnson with Livingstone and Cameron.
The only way Corbyn scores over Johnson is he is a hard worker. Otherwise he has all the vices and none of the virtues.
W got C grades at Yale, though Gore and Kerry did little better
Whilst I don't think he was as much of an idiot as made out I don't think Bush was that intelligent. Although I do somewhat agree with the assessment of Boris, think I said the other day it is something of a smart character he has created, it seems to lead to trouble occasionally (or maybe that is just him and the character helps him out of trouble) but you would argue it has mostly worked in his favour.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.
Yes we were there to turn them into western-style democracies. The American neocons were convinced democracy would take root once the dictators were ousted. And bin Laden was not killed in the war against the taliban.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.
Except now Libya is a continual blood bath and we just ignore it because it was our doing. And the Taliban will be back in government in Afghanistan in the not too distant future.
I know F1 is the motorsport of choice on here, but there's been some right old shenanigans in Motogp this evening.
Just read the v.brief report on BBC, quite pleased as I'm a Ducatisti. What were the shennanigans?
I fast forwarded through it, but it looks like the man on pole Jack Miller gambled on slicks. By the time they did the formation lap, the rest of the field saw that he'd made the right call so they all went into the pits and forced the start to be delayed. They were allowed to switch to slicks but had to start nine rows (50m) behind Miller which was an absolutely farcical sight.
Ah, thanks. Looks like the boy Miller couldn't take advantage.
He was thoroughly screwed over. The rest of them should have been made to change bikes in the pit lane and start from there. It would have handed the race to Miller, but he deserved to win for making the right call.
As for Marquez, my bet isn't looking to clever tonight. Having fought his way up to seventh, he rammed old man Rossi off the track and was handed a 30 second time penalty taking him out of the points. Marquez was by far the quickest out there, but I fear he may face further penalties for his behaviour today.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.
Yes we were there to turn them into western-style democracies. The American neocons were convinced democracy would take root once the dictators were ousted. And bin Laden was not killed in the war against the taliban.
Bin Laden was only killed in Pakistan once he was an easier target than in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Some of the more dreamy neocons may have wanted to turn Afghanistan into western-style democracies, the likes of John Bolton certainly did not. Bolton believes wars should be used to protect US national security interests not to promote democracy and liberalism. Trump shares a similar worldview and has just appointed Bolton his national security adviser
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
A very good point!
The other problem with stack ranking is that it engenders a competition of individuals rather than teamwork and cooperation.
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
I think its a fair argument. Every conflict is different and people constantly referring back to Iraq - which was unique in its incompetence - shouldn't render the west impotent in the face of what is irrefutable evidence of a chemical attack.
In Afghanistan we at least saw the removal of the Taliban from power and Al Qaeda from much of the country and Bin Laden is now dead.
In Libya had we not intervened Benghazi would likely have been a bloodbath
But in both cases all we have done then is massaged our own egos. Both countries are now basket cases and ungovernable - indeed the Taliban are well established again in Afghanistan. Our interventions completely failed and those countries will pay the price for decades to come.
In neither case were we there to turn them into western liberal democracies, in Afghanistan we were there to get Bin Laden and remove the Taliban from control of the government, which was achieved and in Libya to avoid a complete bloodbath by Gaddafi, which was probably also achieved.
Except now Libya is a continual blood bath and we just ignore it because it was our doing. And the Taliban will be back in government in Afghanistan in the not too distant future.
Had Gadhafi remained in power hundreds of thousands would have been killed in Benghazi.
The Taliban may have a token role in government in Afghanistan eventually but so what, they no longer run the whole show, the government is largely made up of the tribal Pashtun majority and most importantly of all Bin Laden is dead
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
A very good point!
The other problem with stack ranking is that it engenders a competition of individuals rather than teamwork and cooperation.
Indeed, I prefer the use of bonuses etc to reward success, including of teams, than just sacking the weakest performers. If they are underperforming try and give them training to get their improvement up. Sacking should be a last resort
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
Does Mercer want his own government to send in the RAF to bomb Russian bases, because that might not end well, or is he hoping the Americans will do something?
According to Wikipedia, somewhere between a quarter and half a million Syrians have been killed in this war. I expect if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
Does Mercer want his own government to send in the RAF to bomb Russian bases, because that might not end well, or is he hoping the Americans will do something?
According to Wikipedia, somewhere between a quarter and half a million Syrians have been killed in this war. I expect if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now.
Perhaps Mercer thinks that we should be bombing both sides of a Civil war
These deaths are appalling, but we are no longer the worlds policeman.
The FSA has lost the war, Assad will resume full control. They need to strike terms of surrender, or flee.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
:
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
:
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
I think its a fair argument. Every conflict is different and people constantly referring back to Iraq - which was unique in its incompetence - shouldn't render the west impotent in the face of what is irrefutable evidence of a chemical attack.
Whether in fact there is something we can or should do in Syria, you make the point far more concisely than I managed about judging every conflict on its particular circumstances.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
I think we've intervened rather a lot in Syria and the region, and that's part of why it is in the position it is today.
If he's arguing that we should have launched a full scale invasion and regime change, I might have sympathies, but that wasn't what was proposed in 2013.
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
Rather like with the action in Libya that prevented a massacre in Benghazi, I think we owe it to the people of Syria to tell Assad - in the only way he understands - that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. We should have made that clear to him half a decade ago.
Given the radically different administration now in place in the US, the planes are probably going to be in the air by tomorrow night.
Has anyone seen Johnny Mercer’s recent tweet re Syria? I won’t post it on here as the images are pretty graphic, (he’s used the images of children suffering as a result of the chemical attack) but it’s directed towards those who don’t agree with interventing in these situations after Iraq. Wondering what people thought of his argument....
The argument is to do nothing is complicite with gassing children but to do something will have unknown consequences.
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
Rather like with the action in Libya that prevented a massacre in Benghazi, I think we owe it to the people of Syria to tell Assad - in the only way he understands - that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. We should have made that clear to him half a decade ago.
Given the radically different administration now in place in the US, the planes are probably going to be in the air by tomorrow night.
It might have prevented a massacre but it has led to tens pf thousands of subsequent deaths and the exporting of violence to lots of neighbouring countries.
And of course the US did subsequently bomb Syria and it made not a blind bit of difference.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
: : :
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
Really? surely the purpose was to engage with the neoliberal economies around the world.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.
The unspoken thing in all this is demotion - a cultural impossibility in the developed world these days. Some people just need to be demoted until they can do the job they have.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
It's what I voted for.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
Well, you should have voted Remain. It was impossible to foresee at the time, but after Brexit and GE 2017 the political centre has abandoned neoliberalism.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
It's what I voted for.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
Both primarily advocated returning sovereignty, Leave.EU focused on reducing immigration.
That was what won it for Leave, certainly not slashing workplace regulations and spending further. Hence the Leave vote was followed by a Corbyn led Labour Party getting 40% at the subsequent general election
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
They look for another job and try harder next time not to be an underperformer once more.
How are they going to get that job after being fired unless they are trained for it?
Even if done through the Job Centre etc that is going to take a while
"Many people are whispering that the MSZP is tragically poorly performing in the countryside, and the good performances in Pest will not be enough." (The MSZP are Labour, more or less)
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakesor below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
It's what I voted for.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
Well, you should have voted Remain. It was impossible to foresee at the time, but after Brexit and GE 2017 the political centre has abandoned neoliberalism.
Yes, a Remain victory followed by an overall majority for a George Osborne led Tory Party at the next general election would have seen the political centre embrace neoliberalism, what has occurred is anything but
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
: : :
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilities
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my proote, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
Really? surely the purpose was to engage with the neoliberal economies around the world.
Unless you fancy a Corbynite Fortress Britain.
It was more neoliberalism for a few wealthy leavers in west London and the Home Counties.
For most of the voters who actually won it for Leave in the North and Midlands and Wales, it was centrist economics at best they wanted, if not left economics, combined with much tougher immigration laws and a more protectionist trade policy
Btw, for the first time in decades a Brit is leading Motogp.
Ha, bloody BBC, didn't notice that their Motogp report was for Quatar! Thought the 123 looked familiar. Hopefully Crutchlow can keep away from the crutch part of his name.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
: : :
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
It sounds like he is just in the wrong job. But he was hired in the first place, so the employer has to take some responsibility for the situation.
As a general maxim for life, I have found that it is better to be optimistic about people and their potential.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
It was a vote for leaving the European Union, nothing more, nothing less.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
: : :
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilities
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
:
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
:
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
:
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
It sounds like he is just in the wrong job. But he was hired in the first place, so the employer has to take some responsibility for the situation.
As a general maxim for life, I have found that it is better to be optimistic about people and their potential.
This guy is untrainable, and does negative amounts of work - he creates fuckups which other people have to fix.
You can't fix people. Quite simply, there are a large number of people out there like this guy. In a world without many mechanistic, simple jobs of the "put the half finished piece on the capstan lathe like this. Press this button to spin up. Wait, push the lever. Spin down. Remove..... put the...." type - what are they capable off?
The capstan lathes are all gone from the factories. These days you have the bright types running the 5 axis lathes - numerate, able to solve problems, fix stuff, etc all by themselves.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
I cite this as an example of how public opinion is shifting after Brexit.
One thing Brexit certainly was not was a vote for more neoliberalism
It was a vote for leaving the European Union, nothing more, nothing less.
As almost every poll showed the reason why people voted to leave the EU was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
: : :
:
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilities
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
Pretty unlikely if the "offended party" isn't seeking it.
If guessing the password of a political opponent, logging in and doing something mildly stupid is going to be prosecuted, then ex Student Union politicians will be figuring quite largely in the tidal wave of court cases that will finally sink our court system.
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.
A job which they will most likely need training for in order to add value.
Plus of course the NHS is not all surgeons and GPs and managers or even nurses, there are also secretaries and caterers and porters and cleaners too
Spending it on junkets for back up staff at the Department of Health is bad.
The untold scandal of austerity is that the axe has been allowed to be wielded by those whose jobs should have been the first to go.
You'll never get a politician to advocate stack ranking the public sector and firing the worst employees each year.
No.
But we should.
The worst thing in my profession is seeing some real duds hang on grimly year after year, while good teachers who aren't dedicated walk away from the profession as they can't take the hassle any more and have other good job options available, and I have to pick up the pieces as best I can when the children come to me, and half the time teach the classes of said dud teachers because they haven't turned up due to 'illness' (which I suspect is frequently laziness). It's soul-destroying.
At the same time we are under severe financial pressure and have just had a round of compulsory redundancies. Fortunately so far the Head (who is sensible) seems to be axing the duds - but that's more work for the rest of us next year.
And on that rather maudlin note, goodnight.
I reckon that I could fire 10% of my organisation and vastly increase its efficiency, but thry have to be the correct 10%. Fire the wrong 10% and things would get a lot worse.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
With all due respect, the job of the NHS is to serve its patients. If there are employees who worsen the performance of the organization they should be let go. And, you never know, they might find themselves in a job where they actually add value.
A job which they will most likely need training for in order to add value.
Plus of course the NHS is not all surgeons and GPs and managers or even nurses, there are also secretaries and caterers and porters and cleaners too
Yes, there was a Yes Minister episode all about it.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilities
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....
Well maybe he is not suited to a managerial role
I was being slightly sardonic - "Managerial" in the sense of wearing a shirt with a tie.
He is not able to do anything that requires any kind of self planning. Even modern factory jobs would be a question mark.
The problem is that firing people is hard. Perhaps he should be sent to govern New South Wales?
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.
Don't you think the police have better things to investigate?
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
What then happens to the fired 10%? They of course need to be retrained to do something else unless we want to expand the welfare bill yet further
You sound like a 1970s trade unionist.
No, a realist. Sacking the weakest 10% may work for Goldman Sachs when most of the sacked are millionaires already and highly qualified and can easily get another job, that is not the case for those on an average wage or below
Firing the bottom 10% can cause plenty of problems - depends how it is done.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teamshit.
Which again either requires training to try an up their performance or retraining to something else
The problem is people who have no idea how to apply knowledge (or indeed know they don't know).
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Well maybe that job was a little too advanced for him and he needs to be retrained for something more suited to his abilities
A job where he wont be required to exercise any thinking regarding planning what he is doing? That'll be a big fall for him. Out of the managerial class for sure....
Well maybe he is not suited to a managerial role
I was being slightly sardonic - "Managerial" in the sense of wearing a shirt with a tie.
He is not able to do anything that requires any kind of self planning. Even modern factory jobs would be a question mark.
The problem is that firing people is hard. Perhaps he should be sent to govern New South Wales?
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
I imagine she will not .However it is a criminal offence.
Don't you think the police have better things to investigate?
Well of course police have to prioritise their resources. Though with an open admission even acknowledging any investigation will take some amount of time, one would hope it would not be too resource intensive.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
The most heinous of crimes. Surprised we abolished the death penalty for it, to be honest.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.
It is Harman who is the guilty person.
Good bit of victimblaming. Is it fine to burgle houses with open windows or unlocked doors?
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.
It is Harman who is the guilty person.
A top contender for most idiotic post of the year.
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Plenty of crimes go unpunished.
When a prime minister was found to be selling peerages, the CPS took the view that it would be unfair to prosecute - since lots of other prime ministers had done the same thing.....
Interesting both that the admission was made, and that the person hacked has not made more of a stink about it. While the 'youthful exuberance' excuse is bollocks as she was apparently 28 at the time, it certainly was juvenile.
Because Harman would have to admit her password was "PASSWORD" or something equally embarrassingly weak!
Hacking is a serious offence. She should be prosecuted and the book be thrown at her (one would hope that the UK is not a banana republic). I am guessing the sentence for such a crime is a significant custodial sentence?
Actually, being hacked is a serious offence. It shows that you are not taking computer security seriously. You have a dumb password, or you are careless, or you are naive. It is unforgiveable for someone in Harman's position.
It is Harman who is the guilty person.
A top contender for most idiotic post of the year.
Certainly not.
If you are for example an examiner, and the exams are stored on your computer, you are responsible for the security.
An examiner would be facing disciplinary action if they had compromised the security of an exam.
Imagine being so credulous, that you accept without question the idea that every time the Syrian forces are close to another victory, they keep mysteriously using chemical weapons (to no military advantage whatsoever), giving the jihadis’ sponsors potential reasons to intervene. Literally every time. You'd have to be a bit simple to take this at face value, wouldnt you? Then again, none so blind as those who will not see, I suppose.
I suppose I’m looking in the wrong place for critical thought here, amongst senile government stenographers and pompous gobshites.
Budapest on Channel 4 at the moment because the new film version of Tinker Tailor... has just started. Bit of a coincidence with the Hungarian election today.
Failure to condemn Russia and Iran over gas attack killing many children in Syria.
His association with Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti west forces now front centre and across the media
How many Tory MPs are criticising a rogue nation like Israel for the systematic and planned murder of Palestinian children day in day out? When will the UK government take action against state terrorism? Weak and pathetic is the usual response! Meanwhile a pariah nation like Israel gets away with murder - quite literally.
Comments
I happen to agree that, on balance, it probably was worth it, and I have been making the point we cannot and should not rule out intervening sometimes, as doing nothing might be worse than another Afghanistan sometimes. But the caution is understandable, and usually doing nothing is probably best.
Rumours: Most of the constituencies of Budapest are won by opposition. Fidesz-KDNP (EPP) won by landslide in other counties.
#Választás2018 #április8 #Országgyűlés #Orbán #KarácsonyGergely #VonaGábor #Hungary #HungaryElections
close to a truism
remember - most of the votes have now been counted, they just can't release the results...
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/983058116806889472
Afghanistan has always been tribal and tough terrain, the key strategic objective should always have been to remove Bin Laden not turn it into a liberal nirvana
I suspect the same is true of most organisations, public or private sector.
As for Marquez, my bet isn't looking to clever tonight. Having fought his way up to seventh, he rammed old man Rossi off the track and was handed a 30 second time penalty taking him out of the points. Marquez was by far the quickest out there, but I fear he may face further penalties for his behaviour today.
Some of the more dreamy neocons may have wanted to turn Afghanistan into western-style democracies, the likes of John Bolton certainly did not. Bolton believes wars should be used to protect US national security interests not to promote democracy and liberalism. Trump shares a similar worldview and has just appointed Bolton his national security adviser
The other problem with stack ranking is that it engenders a competition of individuals rather than teamwork and cooperation.
The Taliban may have a token role in government in Afghanistan eventually but so what, they no longer run the whole show, the government is largely made up of the tribal Pashtun majority and most importantly of all Bin Laden is dead
MSZP/P-S&D/G/EFA: 2 (Budapest XII; Csongrád I)
LMP-G/EFA: 1 (Budapest I)
According to Wikipedia, somewhere between a quarter and half a million Syrians have been killed in this war. I expect if there were an easy answer, someone would have thought of it by now.
These are the horrible choices and I really am not sure but obviously the UN security council is a must but Russia will prevent anything meaningful.
These deaths are appalling, but we are no longer the worlds policeman.
The FSA has lost the war, Assad will resume full control. They need to strike terms of surrender, or flee.
I can tell you hilarious tales of what happened at Microsoft when they tried that.... Managers would eagerly grab the "fails" from other teams. That way they had the 10% would would fail next year, and keep the rest of the team happy because they wouldn't be fighting like rats tin a sack not to be in the bottom 10%. Failure wasn't just an option - it was a career choice...
The other side is that in many public service jobs, the useless ones actually do damage. In my business dealings with one team in a tax office, it became clear that there was one star in the team, one semi-star, a bunch of people for who evidence of existence was lacking and a couple of people who could ruin a bucket of shit.
If he's arguing that we should have launched a full scale invasion and regime change, I might have sympathies, but that wasn't what was proposed in 2013.
Given the radically different administration now in place in the US, the planes are probably going to be in the air by tomorrow night.
And of course the US did subsequently bomb Syria and it made not a blind bit of difference.
It's also what both Gove and Boris advocated for.
I have just spent a few months watching a brilliant, kind, dedicated guy try and "train" such a lump. I sat him down and explained to him that the chap in question was not changeable - he has no ability to form a plan and carry it through. He just does stuff - of the moment, and almost randomly.
Brilliant guy had a (horrible) moment of epiphany - he realised that inside the other guys head was quite simply a lot less intelligence.
Unless you fancy a Corbynite Fortress Britain.
That was what won it for Leave, certainly not slashing workplace regulations and spending further. Hence the Leave vote was followed by a Corbyn led Labour Party getting 40% at the subsequent general election
Even if done through the Job Centre etc that is going to take a while
For most of the voters who actually won it for Leave in the North and Midlands and Wales, it was centrist economics at best they wanted, if not left economics, combined with much tougher immigration laws and a more protectionist trade policy
It was thrilling!
Hopefully Crutchlow can keep away from the crutch part of his name.
As a general maxim for life, I have found that it is better to be optimistic about people and their potential.
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/983078689788387328
She could probably be prosecuted for it as well.
It's hovering at 49.5%, I could do with it edging down (foreign votes will probably help)
If guessing the password of a political opponent, logging in and doing something mildly stupid is going to be prosecuted, then ex Student Union politicians will be figuring quite largely in the tidal wave of court cases that will finally sink our court system.
Then again....
Plus of course the NHS is not all surgeons and GPs and managers or even nurses, there are also secretaries and caterers and porters and cleaners too
He is not able to do anything that requires any kind of self planning. Even modern factory jobs would be a question mark.
The problem is that firing people is hard. Perhaps he should be sent to govern New South Wales?
Failure to condemn Russia over nerve agent attack
Failure to deal with Anti Semitism
Failure to condemn Russia and Iran over gas attack killing many children in Syria.
His association with Russia, Iran, Hamas and anti west forces now front centre and across the media
The Queen should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her six decades' service to the Commonwealth, senior political figures and ministers say.
It is Harman who is the guilty person.
When a prime minister was found to be selling peerages, the CPS took the view that it would be unfair to prosecute - since lots of other prime ministers had done the same thing.....
If you are for example an examiner, and the exams are stored on your computer, you are responsible for the security.
An examiner would be facing disciplinary action if they had compromised the security of an exam.
It is you who are a weapons-grade idiot.
I suppose I’m looking in the wrong place for critical thought here, amongst senile government stenographers and pompous gobshites.