The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

What an absolute arsehole

Yes she is. What did she actually expect to be the outcome of doorstepping someone unannounced with a camera, where she knew she wouldn't get a response for a publicity stunt?

Shabby journalists trick

[Davkaus]

25 minutes ago, darrenm said:

What an absolute arsehole

 

I can see why he wouldn't want to answer policy questions when people turn up and shove a camera in his face, but he could have said hello, explained he couldn't talk about that right now and moved on. If this did really occur as it is presented (and I'm skeptical of any footage presented on social media, especially when it kicks in when theyr'e already right next to each other with him walking away) , it is pretty shitty behaviour. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Davkaus

[Davkaus]

At the very least, he could have stopped and asked her name so that they could remove her from the party more easily. 

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I can see why he wouldn't want to answer policy questions when people turn up and shove a camera in his face, but he could have said hello, explained he couldn't talk about that right now and moved on. If this did really occur as it is presented (and I'm skeptical of any footage presented on social media, especially when it kicks in when theyr'e already right next to each other with him walking away) , it is pretty shitty behaviour. 

That's exactly it. It's really rude to just ignore someone if they're not being aggressive. She was perfectly polite and he blanked her. All he had to do was say "I'm really sorry I can't stop, I'm late for my next thing". Any acknowledgement at all would be better than being ignorant.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

1] It is well-known that the Treasury is already the most powerful department, and blocks needed spending for reasons of instutional small-c conservatism. This would be yet another obstacle blocking reforms or budget increases.

2] Large areas of policy will be exempted - nobody is going to declare that Trident or the Iraq War won't provide 'value for money' - so in practice it will only be used to prevent infrastructure being built or welfare being increased, ie it will in practice be a weapon used against the interests of poorer people.

3] It implicitly accepts a deeply conservative framing that government expenditure is primarily 'waste'.

4] It is in general bad to take political decisions out of the hands of politicians and park them with 'apolitical' bureaucrats. We're now decades into this project, and I note that central bank independence has been great for asset owners and really not great for wage earners. Politicians should be responsible for political decisions, because we have a way of holding them accountable.

I agree with point 2

the others less so. Point 1, you’re right about the power of the treasury, yet the flip side is an independent reviewer saying “ yes, this social housing/road/research centre/ whatever represents good value” could be a good influence. Likewise “no, another Heathrow runway/ HS2 / Bridge to Ireland” is a waste of money and damages x,y,z”. At the moment we get some, after the event report that says “lessons to be learned over ATC computer upgrade” which is soon buried and forgotten. If you get “The proposed contract with JRMhedge plc will not represent good value for the Taxpayer as the profits are excessive and the company is based on the Cayman Islands”…this could reduce or stop the type of syphoning seen with COVID contracts etc to Tory mates and family.

Point 3, it absolutely doesn’t have to. It’s also the case that there is huge amounts of government waste and appalling value. HS2 anyone?

Point 4. It’s not taking decisions out of politicians hands, it’s arming them with more information/ providing an assessment against which we can judge their decisions at or before the time they are made, rather than when they have left office years later. “Minister,  are you proceeding with the massive Union Jack lorry park on Dartmoor, despite the office for value for money saying it’s unnecessary, the cost is 3x too high, the environmental damage is significant and the prime contractor, Matt Hancock’s local pub landlord, appears not to have the resources needed to protect the taxpayer against the whole thing going tits up”?

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Point 1, you’re right about the power of the treasury, yet the flip side is an independent reviewer saying “ yes, this social housing/road/research centre/ whatever represents good value” could be a good influence. Likewise “no, another Heathrow runway/ HS2 / Bridge to Ireland” is a waste of money and damages x,y,z”. At the moment we get some, after the event report that says “lessons to be learned over ATC computer upgrade” which is soon buried and forgotten.

After the fact, you can actually analyse the thing that happened and potentially learn some lessons from it, which is what the NAO does. Before it happens, all people can be doing is making assumptions, which will necessarily be ideological. All government spending decisions are ideological, but this step involves outsourcing the decisions to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Nice for politicians, who now have both a line of defence (it's fine, we got it certified as 'value for money') and another excuse not to do something they didn't really want to do that they put in their manifesto, but not great for the electorate.

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Point 4. It’s not taking decisions out of politicians hands, it’s arming them with more information/ providing an assessment against which we can judge their decisions at or before the time they are made, rather than when they have left office years later. “Minister,  are you proceeding with the massive Union Jack lorry park on Dartmoor, despite the office for value for money saying it’s unnecessary, the cost is 3x too high, the environmental damage is significant and the prime contractor, Matt Hancock’s local pub landlord, appears not to have the resources needed to protect the taxpayer against the whole thing going tits up”?

It is in practice taking the decision out of their hands. It will rapidly come to be seen as a baseline level of certification, much like having your manifesto approved as 'fully costed' has become a ritual in the run-up to elections.

Broader point, but an annoying thing that liberals do is on the one hand complain that all politics is nowadays is noisy culture war position-taking, but then on the other keep building new lines of bureaucratic defence between the electorate and the levers of economic control. If people don't want politics to just be about free speech on university campuses or fights about trans rights, then they need to allow elections to cause meaningful changes in the way the country's economy works.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

After the fact, you can actually analyse the thing that happened and potentially learn some lessons from it, which is what the NAO does. Before it happens, all people can be doing is making assumptions, which will necessarily be ideological.

This is just…I can’t think of a polite word for the second part of your assertion. Across multiple industries, enterprises, Unions, government departments, and many other aspects of life and work and so on, the use of Independent auditors, bodies, committees, directors etc. is commonplace. Their roles and terms of reference are defined and scoped out. They are used both before, after and during. They are the opposite of ideological.

Currently the machine of government is poor at learning lessons from past endeavours. How long did PFI stuff go on for?  Monstrously wasteful contracts, appalling value for money in a huge number of cases. The political side of it was “it keeps the costs out of the ledger of public borrowing”. The reality was it cost (and still costs) the public purse an absolute fortune.

[Davkaus]

Regardless of the merits of the role, I wouldn't want to be the apolitical bod overseeing and either greenlighting or cockblocking government policy. Seems very much like a role that will get the credit for nothing and the blame for everything.

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is just…I can’t think of a polite word for the second part of your assertion. Across multiple industries, enterprises, Unions, government departments, and many other aspects of life and work and so on, the use of Independent auditors, bodies, committees, directors etc. is commonplace. Their roles and terms of reference are defined and scoped out. They are used both before, after and during. They are the opposite of ideological.

The definition of 'value for money' that gets used can only be decided as a result of an ideological process. What I consider 'value for money', what you consider 'value for money', and what Boris Johnson considers 'value for money' are not going to all be the same thing.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

That's exactly it. It's really rude to just ignore someone if they're not being aggressive.

Sorry, every rocket polisher that walks up to me and starts asking me questions in the street is going to be subject to some sort of terse comment. If it's a conversation I didn't invite or initiate, why try and engage me. That's what's rude here

This goes for politics, chuggers, salesmen, whatever. Trying to start conversation in the street with anyone you don't know about anything is absolutely rude

 

[Davkaus]

55 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sorry, every rocket polisher that walks up to me and starts asking me questions in the street is going to be subject to some sort of terse comment. If it's a conversation I didn't invite or initiate, why try and engage me. That's what's rude here

 

 

Presumably why you're not an elected MP and leader of the opposition.

[bickster]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Presumably why you're not an elected MP and leader of the opposition.

That has absolutely no bearing on anything. The job you do does not mean peoples manners towards you should change

Rule number one in any situation such as this, any social media manager will tell you. say absoutely nothing because anything you say will be used against you, the noise from saying nothing is more shortlived than the noise from saying something

The whole thing reeks of a set up, right down to the young girl next door type they used to ask the questions

 

[Davkaus]

I agree with your third paragraph, have mixed feelings on the second (he could have politely declined - but maybe he did, we don't know how this was edited), and disagree wholeheartedly with the first.

It's a lot more reasonable thing to do to stop an elected member of parliament in the street to discuss policy, especially in the immediate run up to a party conference, than it is to stop, I don't know, just off the top of my head, a grumpy employee of a taxi company.  

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

It's a lot more reasonable thing to do to stop an elected member of parliament in the street to discuss policy, especially in the immediate run up to a party conference, than it is to stop, I don't know, just off the top of my head, a grumpy employee of a taxi company

It isn't though. Saying that means MPs have no private life and aren't entitled to time away from the job. I really absolutely isn't OK

It's similar thinking to say a Rock Musician getting hounded for an autogrpah when he's out shopping with the family is OK because you bought his album

There's a time and place for the Rock Musician just as there's a time and -place for the MP

I'm not sure why people think this is normal and acceptable behaviour

[Davkaus]

Where do you stand on Raab being on holiday and staying out there for days after the fall of Kabul? I mean, he was on his annual leave...

 

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

It isn't though. Saying that means MPs have no private life and aren't entitled to time away from the job. I really absolutely isn't OK

I'd say when he's in Brighton and in conference and in his suit, he's at work.

Whichever, he could have handled it better, it wouldn't have been difficult to say sorry, can't talk, on my way to a meeting or whatever, but I'm not sure it's the biggest thing in the world.

Teacup.

 

[Davkaus]

And just so we're clear about these cirumstances, Starmer isn't "away from the job". He's not away on holiday. He's not shopping with his family, or trying to enjoy a night out in private.

He's on the job, in town for a political party conference.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Where do you stand on Raab being on holiday and staying out there for days after the fall of Kabul? I mean, he was on his annual leave...

 

Being a Minister of State and having to return early from a family Holiday to deal with a crisis is again, absolutely not the same thing

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

And just so we're clear about these cirumstances, Starmer isn't "away from the job". He's not away on holiday. He's not shopping with his family, or trying to enjoy a night out in private.

He's on the job, in town for a political party conference.

Yes and even in that situation people need to be able to switch off for a few minutes between appointments

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes and even in that situation people need to be able to switch off for a few minutes between appointments

And he's free to do that, nobody has said he needs to take time out of his day to address her comments in detail, but a "sorry I can't talk about that right now" would have gone a long way towards not making him look like a word removed.