Corbyn did win, what's next?

Henri McPhee said:
That's all very well, and I know it has been said that Britain is a nation of amateurs. The problem is that things like social security and pensions and social housing is in the control of people who have never been poor. Health is in the control of people who have private healthcare schemes. Industrial policy is in the control of people who have never been inside a factory or steelworks. It leads to a disastrous and monstrous policy.
Click to expand...
Not necessity. The Drug tzar has never been a crystal meth addict. We get people who are well (doctors) to prescribe cures to people who have illnesses the Doctor never has. We send out people who have never been close to drowning save people floundering at sea.

I can think of quite a few Ministers who have had careers in the areas they lead however even where they do not they have behind them a vast array of advisors who do have years of expertise in the area.

The ill will all want the latest cure, the Army the latest weapons and the poor the most luxurious council house for the lowest cost. We do not have the funds to meet those wishes. The fact that choices don't match everyones expectations is not just because of the minister's history.

Before any decisions are taken the ministers carefully consider the advice from the impartial civil service as well as industry and other lobbyists. This and the last government are very keen not to spring new measures on the public and practically all changes are subject to public consultation and subsequent review. That said, decisions may be taken to fit in with the political manifesto as opposed to meeting the aims of those affected. However that is politics it is not because the minister has not had a lifetime working in or direct experience of the problem the department addresses.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Not necessity. The Drug tzar has never been a crystal meth addict. We get people who are well (doctors) to prescribe cures to people who have illnesses the Doctor never has. We send out people who have never been close to drowning save people floundering at sea......
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Well said.
 
The same thing applies to the chief execs of large companies.

In the current scandal involving Volkswagen cheating the diesel car pollution tests, the resigning chief exec was able to make the excuse, "I didn't know what was going on. I am not an engineer!"

Of course, the correct response of the politicians would have been to jail the chief exec and/or other members of the board for running an engineering-based company with executives who were incompetent to understand the actions of the company they ran. But I suppose the fact that the politicians are also incompetent to know what is going on in their departments means that they were reluctant to do that.

It's also telling that the politicians are shuffled around fairly often - presumably once a politician has been long enough in charge of, say, education to understand how the department works, then it is time to move him or her to be in charge of something completely new to them - say the defence department for a couple of years.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Of course, the correct response of the politicians would have been to jail the chief exec and/or other members of the board for running an engineering-based company with executives who were incompetent to understand the actions of the company they ran. But I suppose the fact that the politicians are also incompetent to know what is going on in their departments means that they were reluctant to do that.
Click to expand...

I think it's a sweeping generalisation to state that all or most politicians (or in this case ministers) are incompetent. We really only hear about it when the minister has a major falling out with their department which means that IMO most departments are happy (or at least content) with their ministers most of the time.

Regarding whether or not to jail executives for the actions of those people working for them, IMO it's a case of determining whether or not it's reasonable that they should have known about whatever it is that they are under attack about. IMO in the case of Volkswagen there is a case to answer because the engineering decisions weren't taken by a single person in isolation and to me it seems that the executives were deliberately looking the other way.

ceptimus said:
It's also telling that the politicians are shuffled around fairly often - presumably once a politician has been long enough in charge of, say, education to understand how the department works, then it is time to move him or her to be in charge of something completely new to them - say the defence department for a couple of years.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your presumption. Senior ministers often stay with their departments for a long time. Junior ministers are shuffled around a lot but in part this is to reward/punish them for their actions but also presumably it's to give them the breadth of experience of different departments that some people in this thread seem to be calling for. When I was a Philips graduate trainee, I spent some time in the drawing office (even though I wasn't a draughtsman - yes that's how long ago it was, I helped to install the CAD system), some time in production management (even though I wasn't a production management specialist), some time in quality control and some time in the IT department. The idea was to give me breadth of experience, contacts in the factory and to work out what I might be good at.
 
My training as a graduate employee followed a similar path.

The difference compared to the ministers is that we were training. We weren't put in charge of the drawing office for a period and then moved to being in charge of the IT department.

Companies generally have the good sense to put people in charge of departments who already have experience in how those departments run, and have demonstrated competence at working in those departments.
 
ceptimus said:
My training as a graduate employee followed a similar path.

The difference compared to the ministers is that we were training. We weren't put in charge of the drawing office for a period and then moved to being in charge of the IT department.

Companies generally have the good sense to put people in charge of departments who already have experience in how those departments run, and have demonstrated competence at working in those departments.
Click to expand...

Who are you going to put in charge of Culture, Media and Sport? Who is going to be your Prisons Minister?

Your premise is silly.
 
Last edited:
I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby explaining away a silly mistake he made early in his civil service career, which ended up costing the country millions: "Well obviously I wasn't a trained lawyer, or I wouldn't have been in charge of the legal department".
 
Lothian said:
Not necessity. The Drug tzar has never been a crystal meth addict. We get people who are well (doctors) to prescribe cures to people who have illnesses the Doctor never has. We send out people who have never been close to drowning save people floundering at sea.

I can think of quite a few Ministers who have had careers in the areas they lead however even where they do not they have behind them a vast array of advisors who do have years of expertise in the area.

The ill will all want the latest cure, the Army the latest weapons and the poor the most luxurious council house for the lowest cost. We do not have the funds to meet those wishes. The fact that choices don't match everyones expectations is not just because of the minister's history.

Before any decisions are taken the ministers carefully consider the advice from the impartial civil service as well as industry and other lobbyists. This and the last government are very keen not to spring new measures on the public and practically all changes are subject to public consultation and subsequent review. That said, decisions may be taken to fit in with the political manifesto as opposed to meeting the aims of those affected. However that is politics it is not because the minister has not had a lifetime working in or direct experience of the problem the department addresses.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between not being an expert and being completely unaware of the reality of things though. Too many MPs seem disconnected and disengaged from the results of their decisions. The politics seems to have become more important than the effects of the policies.

I think that's a bigger deal than whether the industry minister has actually worked in industry.

There are similar issues in the press/media - they are more concerned with the process and the politics than the results.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
There is a distinction between not being an expert and being completely unaware of the reality of things though. Too many MPs seem disconnected and disengaged from the results of their decisions. The politics seems to have become more important than the effects of the policies.
Click to expand...
That assumes that the "effects of politics" that concerns you is the same "effects" that concern ministers. You may see the effect as failing public services whereas the Ministers see a lower cost of services. They are not disengaged they just have different priorities.

I think that's a bigger deal than whether the industry minister has actually worked in industry.
Click to expand...
Don't see it.

There are similar issues in the press/media - they are more concerned with the process and the politics than the results.
Click to expand...
The mostly right wing press will focus on the same financial priorities as the right wing government, and less on the trivial stuff like people suffering.
 
Lothian said:
That assumes that the "effects of politics" that concerns you is the same "effects" that concern ministers. You may see the effect as failing public services whereas the Ministers see a lower cost of services. They are not disengaged they just have different priorities.

Don't see it.

The mostly right wing press will focus on the same financial priorities as the right wing government, and less on the trivial stuff like people suffering.
Click to expand...

Well I give the politicians the benefit of the doubt and assume that they aren't generally complete sociopaths or comicbook villains.

That they have different priorities I think is a reflection of their backgrounds and experience as much as it their own motivations. Its very easy to make decisions based on data and numbers without appreciating the real effects on real people. Especially if you have no real experience of these real people.

If the country is increasingly becoming Them and Us then the fact that the government is mostly Them (whatever colour of tie they wear) cannot be a good thing in the long term.

For the Press, I think its a race to the bottom. They'd mostly rather talk about the internal machinations of the Labour Party or people's views on Trident/NATO than actually do anything productive. And the 'so-called-left-wing-media' are no better.
 
I don't like the way this recent decision to scrap student maintenance grants, and replace them with loans, was taken without any debate in parliament about it, or protest from Corbyn. Politicians of his generation all had maintenance grants when they were at university. Not everybody has a bank of mum and dad, like the Cameron kids.

Corbyn should seize the situation like a man, and act drastically when financial weakness is plainly visible. It's no wonder that students demonstrate. Now they get kettled by the police as well. It can get nasty on those demonstrations.

I suppose the politicians and civil servants say the solution is for an artificial stimulus of massive illegitimate money printing, which is brilliant economics, I don't think so.
 
There seems to be deafening silence from Corbyn about Local Authorities closing libraries and public conveniences. I don't call it progress.
 
I think there is a confusion here about the role of the minister which is about setting policy and getting acts passed and and the role of civil servant departments which is to offer ministers policy advice and to operationally run the department to meet the policy objectively. They are where the practical expertise should be and very often is. For example the treasury is full of economists and accountants, the dept of environment has a large number of environmental experts, etc
 
Henri McPhee said:
There seems to be deafening silence from Corbyn about Local Authorities closing libraries and public conveniences. I don't call it progress.
Click to expand...

Whilst this is regrettable and I for one would prefer that this did not happen it's not a matter of life or death. Perhaps there more urgent and/or important matters for him to expend his political energy and capital on.
 
The House of Lords had an interesting discussion yesterday about the proposed new Housing Bill by the Tory capitalist state which proposes an end to affordable healthy rented accommodation in favour of subsidised owner occupation, partly by foreigners. I think Corbyn could do more than just rubber stamp all this. It's fine if you can afford it, like private education, or buy to let.

There always has been a housing shortage in this country and particularly so after the two world wars. I do think the Local Authorities should be consulted.

I just think all this is going back to Victorian times when there was no social security and where there was still workhouse discipline. I don't think it's progress.
 
Cameron's bubble is bursting, which is hardly a surprise given his nature and that of other senior cabinet colleagues. But Cameron's "bunch of migrants" jibe about the Calais refugees today - Holocaust Remembrance Day - is attracting flak from all sides. Shame on him.

He embarrassed himself very soon after the entire govt. started being embarrassed by the Google deal. When even Murdoch weighs in against the "Posh boys in Downing Street" your days are numbered.

I wonder who will be the next Con leader?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom