Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I don't think that is fair. I think a lot of the government and parliament know full well what a disaster Brexit is going to be, on one side from the economic fall-out, on the other side from the inevitable failure to satisfy unrealistic expectations (e.g. reduce immigration to 100,000 because I wanna...)
Consequently they are wrestling with a combination of denial, desperation and a desire to make it happen combined with a deficit of the means realistically to do so.
I bet there are thousands of civil servants quietly indulging in schadenfreude.
I'm not denying that a lot in parliament knows how bad it will get. However I'm not so sure as to the government. Either they are deliberately misleading people or they believe that they are going to be able mitigate the worst of the fall out through clever politics - this is what I was more referring to with the looks greener on the other side metaphor. Of course by not saying anything about it other than "Brexit means Wrexit" or red white and blue (aka the gushing life blood leaving the country, the whitening withering of the body as it fades and the blue of the rotting corpse) then we don't really know what they think other than their soundbites. So if we take that at their word then they really have no idea!
The UK political elite, maybe. But did the British people?
Were the people who voted on June the 23rd know exactly what they were voting for?
No one knew the full implications of either side of the vote. That's why it should have never gone to a referendum in the first place. It just gave an excuse of the populist right to grow.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also here is Ivan Rogers full resignation letter. It's not pleasant reading at the bottom if you are a UK citizen!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/03 22:42:59
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Theresa May -- Conservative leader and PM -- has --slightly -- highly approval ratings than Jeremy Corbyn -- Leader of the Labour party -- among 2015 Labour voters.
Financial issues - Farm subsidies
It is not clear whether there will be subsidies for farmers after we leave the EU. Any new farm subsidies which the Government introduces to replace CAP should provide a better balance between support to agriculture and environmental protection. New subsidies should have clearly defined objectives linked to the delivery of public goods, like the promotion of biodiversity, preventing flooding and storing carbon, rather than simply providing income support to farmers. The determination of which public goods to support should be evidence-based, with the aim of addressing market failure. Any possible future scheme should be more able to allow innovative technologies for protecting the environment.
Mary Creagh said:
"It was concerning that the Environment Secretary gave my Committee no reassurance that there would be subsidies for farmers after we leave the EU."
Background
The Government has said it will introduce a 'Great Repeal Bill' to transpose and retain European Legislation into UK law when we leave the EU.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Committee that approximately a third of the over 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation will be difficult to transpose into UK law.
Over 70% if the land area of the UK is in some form of agricultural use.
EU farm subsidies currently make up to around 50-60% of UK farm income.
Total UK CAP expenditure last year was £3.5 billion, much of this Pillar 1.
CAP provides subsidies to farmers on a per hectate basis for land actively farmed (Pillar 1) and for rural development activities, including those intended to have an environmental benefit (Pillar 2).
Payments to farmers are subject to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. The EU has a specific agreement with the WTO covering those CAP payments.
If the UK chooses not to enter into an arrangement with the European Single Market the UK farming industry may face tariffs and non-tariff barriers when exporting produce to the EU.
The Committee was told that sheep exports could face in excess of 30% tariffs and beef 50% if the UK did not have free access to the Single Market.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 13:03:10
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
He's also one of Dave's old mates and masterminded the previous renegotiations (which let us be reminded, came to sod all). So judging by his track record in that department....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/04 13:23:30
He's also one of Dave's old mates and masterminded the previous renegotiations (which let us be reminded, came to sod all). So judging by his track record in that department....
I agree - it's no great loss in my book, and he was out the door in November anyway, but none the less, it creates this mood, this sense of momentum that things aren't going Downing Street's way, and that May and her henchmen are floundering without a plan. They are reacting to events rather than setting the agenda themselves.
Momentum and confidence is important to any government - look what happened to Obama when that early, confident surge went, and with the Supreme Court poised to back up the high court, it's another problem for the government to have to focus on.
I've got mixed feelings on this. Losing somebody of his experience, especially his knowledge of the EU, is not a good thing, but on the other hand reports are saying he advised Cameron ahead of last year's negotiations for more powers.
Considering how bad, how horsegak that was i.e Cameron asking for nothing and not even getting half of that, perhaps it's no bad thing.
Even so, it only adds to the idea that May and Co. have no idea what they are doing...
It's very bad news really. You've lost someone that knows how the EU works at this level, knows the people on personal terms and knows what are the drivers for each of the countries. He's probably been pushed out because of talking realistic expectations on what we can expect from Brexit. However the experience and knowledge he will take with him is not something you are going to be able to replace overnight. If I just lost someone who was going to be managing a multi-billion £ project just days before it was about to start I would be mortified. Most people take 6-18 months before they even start to get up to speed on the intricacies of the job. I'm not sure that Empress May has thanked him either. That would imply some difference in opinion on the EU.
Like with any organisation if you effectively force someone out because they highlight genuine issues, then the risk you run is that the only people that then go for the job are 'yes-men' that will do the best impression of a Churchill dog. It drives a fear based culture where no one wants to take a risk and be thought of as a trouble maker. That sort of approach only leads to a bad end. The person at the top thinks everything is going well because no one will speak out. Then when it hits an issue it all falls over because no one has been willing to highlight the bleedin' obvious.
It's just another example of how the current government are completely failing to get a grasp of any of the realistic effects that will occur from Brexit and that will all be green meadows with flowers!
I don't disagree with any of this, but there is the possibility that Rogers, having spent too long in Brussels, went 'native' and forgot where his original loyalty lay.
That's the reading I'm getting from the situation, but then again, I won't take at face value the whispered mutterings of disgruntled Tory MPs.
We'll get the truth one day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 15:17:26
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But he hasn't spent too long in Brussels. Seriously. I spent about as much time doing my undergrad and first postgrad as he has in Europe. His career, in order to date has been:-
- HM Treasury civil servant rank and file up until the mid-90's.
- Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke.
- Briefly seconded out as Chef de Cabinet to the Vice-President of European Commission.
- Director of EU Strategy and Policy at HM Treasury
- Director of Budget and Tax Policy at HM Treasury under Gordon Brown.
-Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (Tony Blair).
Then he left the civil service (2006) and went to work at Citibank as Head of the UK Public Sector Group. Then he shuffled across to Barclays in 2010 to work as their equivalent in the same job role for two years.
In 2012, Cameron brought him back to function as an advisor, before finally moving across to his current (well, now ex) post in the EU a year or so later.
He has no 'special experience' that several dozen other people in government employ don't also have. Whilst he's spent some time in Brussels, he's not been there long. He's just an ex-Treasury mandarin who jumped to the private sector and then got to be friends with Dave whilst he was working in the banking sector. Now, like most of Dave's mates who got jobs, he's out in the cold with regards to the new administration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he did as good a job of it as he could whilst he was there, but he's hardly some special irreplaceable snowflake anyone will miss.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/04 16:14:54
Ketara wrote: But he hasn't spent too long in Brussels. Seriously. I spent about as much time doing my undergrad and first postgrad as he has in Europe. His career, in order to date has been:-
- HM Treasury civil servant rank and file up until the mid-90's.
- Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke.
- Briefly seconded out as Chef de Cabinet to the Vice-President of European Commission.
- Director of EU Strategy and Policy at HM Treasury
- Director of Budget and Tax Policy at HM Treasury under Gordon Brown.
-Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (Tony Blair).
Then he left the civil service (2006) and went to work at Citibank as Head of the UK Public Sector Group. Then he shuffled across to Barclays in 2010 to work as their equivalent in the same job role for two years.
In 2012, Cameron brought him back to function as an advisor, before finally moving across to his current (well, now ex) post in the EU a year or so later.
He has no 'special experience' that several dozen other people in government employ don't also have. Whilst he's spent some time in Brussels, he's not been there long. He's just an ex-Treasury mandarin who jumped to the private sector and then got to be friends with Dave whilst he was working in the banking sector. Now, like most of Dave's mates who got jobs, he's out in the cold with regards to the new administration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he did as good a job of it as he could whilst he was there, but he's hardly some special irreplaceable snowflake anyone will miss.
I think my definition of what constitutes service in Brussels is less rigid than yours.
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but I've been to Brussels before and seen the various EU buildings, and despite not setting foot in them, I felt 'uneasy' in their presence, not in a bad way, but their was a strong sense of coldness, sterility, and petty bureaucracy about them, which has left a strong impression on me to this day and not in a good way. It was like 1980s East Germany.
Granted, the same could be said for most modern buildings, especially those of large corporations, but when I looked upon the EU buildings, I didn't get any joy or warmth from them. They had no character. It was one image that summed up the EU in my eyes.
Full of good intentions, but ultimately, unloved.
The House of Commons, is, as the Star Wars quote goes, a wretched den of scum and villainy, but those old buildings have warmth and character about them, even though I despise most of the MPs in them.
So, IMO, which is biased I must admit, anybody who spends more than 5 minutes in those EU buildings, feels that subtle atmosphere.
Crazy, I know, but architecture and buildings can do that to people. It did to me!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
No, I'm saying buildings can have a subconscious affect on people.
It has often been said that the reason why British foreign secretaries go barmy is because they work from a building that once housed people who have done so much to change world history: Palmerston, Sykes-Picot, the American Colonies, partition of India etc etc
They end up getting delusions of grandeur - look what happened to William Hague when he was FS.
When I visited the EU buildings at Brussels, I didn't like what I see. It was like something out of 1984 IMO.
Again, I'll say that this is only a theory of mine, take it or leave it.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
No one knew the full implications of either side of the vote.
That wasn't my point. The charge that the 1975 referendum was an elitist smokescreen that blinded the ignorant masses could equally be leveled at the 2016 referendum.
In reality the voting public was probably as informed as they ever are with both votes.
No one knew the full implications of either side of the vote.
That wasn't my point. The charge that the 1975 referendum was an elitist smokescreen that blinded the ignorant masses could equally be leveled at the 2016 referendum.
In reality the voting public was probably as informed as they ever are with both votes.
His loyalties apparently involved telling the government inconvenient truths.
Do we have anything though? So far, all we have is newspaper gossip, disgruntled backbench Tory MPs, IDS on his hobby horse, various ex-politicians, and partisan media gossip milking it for all it's worth.
Remain: it's a disaster. Leave: good riddance to him.
I'm not saying that he didn't tell inconvenient truths, but the jury is still out on the facts.
Rogers has been invited to appear before the relevant commons select committee, and has received an invite from the committee's chief, Sir Bill Cash MP, so the truth will more than likely emerge from that and I reserve judgement until then.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
For an industry that’s been around as long as mankind itself, farming has been at the centre of human achievement.
an industry that’s been around as long as mankind itself
Homo sapiens date back at least 200,000 years.
Humans started growing plants for food about 12- 20,000 years ago.
This post truth world really is proving most educational.
This woman was nearly Prime Minister.
*dads'armyquote here*
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I don't disagree with any of this, but there is the possibility that Rogers, having spent too long in Brussels, went 'native' and forgot where his original loyalty lay.
May has reportedly been pretty openly hostile to anyone who questions her lack of clarity re. Brexit. I can easily see anyone with actual experience of Brussels falling foul of that.
I should imagine May is defensive about her vision of Brexit because she doesn't have one yet.
The key problem is the trade-off between access to the single market against control of free movement.
There are lots of other problems that will take a lot of time and work to resolve, but there doesn't seem to me to be a way of combining market access (including pass-porting of services) with the revocation of free movement.
The solution in this case therefore would be to leave the free market and negotiate some kind of trade deal like the South Koreans and Canadians have done (which could take years) and let the rather large, important services sector twist in the wind.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he did as good a job of it as he could whilst he was there, but he's hardly some special irreplaceable snowflake anyone will miss.
No one is irreplaceable in any job. It's more how disjointed you can make things by doing so. It takes time to get your feet wet in any job. That is not to say that the person they replace won't be capable of doing a decent job, but it takes 6 - 18 months to really get a hadle on things and become more efficient. From silly things like getting to know the people that work for you and what environment they work best in, to knowing which of the EU advisors have the ear of the people you need to negotiate with, to even knowing which advisors Boris the Clown or Empress May put more weight on. These things all come out as part of getting your hands dirty with the job. The new person will have to learn these things on the job and because that will result in miscommunication and misinterpretation for a time. That slows the process down and also leaves you more exposed to being negotiated around.
The other risk is that if as was alluded to they do not like that he argues with Empress May and she doesn't like that then they could risk replacing him with someone more compliant and less willing to highlight any inconvenient truths. If that is the case then the staff working for the new person might get frustrated as well then and also leave and you might have a wave of civil servants retiring/resigning over time at the same time you are trying to negotiate perhaps the most complex set of terms ever is not going to go well! That's before we even consider the risks associated with a nodding dog mentality you might end up with. We all saw what happened with Kirby in charge as a CEO and you run the same risk here. It's fine to start off with as everyone thinks she making all the important decisions but there is a huge difference between making the high level decisions and just letting you staff getting on with it vs making every decision and micro managing the detail (and then damn those that step out of line). I can't recall who said it but somebody once said that if you are a leader you ant to surround people with people that are better than you are and wil argue where they think you have it wrong. Not because they want your job but so you have the best people advising you so you can make the best decision with all the information.
I also see they have been quick to replace him with Tim Barrow - makes me doubt it was a fair and even selection process! .
For an industry that’s been around as long as mankind itself, farming has been at the centre of human achievement.
an industry that’s been around as long as mankind itself
Homo sapiens date back at least 200,000 years.
Humans started growing plants for food about 12- 20,000 years ago.
This post truth world really is proving most educational.
This woman was nearly Prime Minister.
*dads'armyquote here*
She is however head of DEFRA which is just as much a . I can imagine she drives most people in DEFRA spare and probably gets shuffled off to a quiet room somewhere. On the other hand maybe she believes in creationism and hence agriculture just popped into existence with the human species. I wouldn't be surprised, there is still some question as to whether she really believes in climate change.
Basically it is saying that new drugs can be held off from being used indefinitely. That really does open the window to the NHS letting people die so they don't have to pay.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/04 19:27:01
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Don't say that too loudly, or all the various muckrakers might start questioning seven figure CEO pay!
It's more how disjointed you can make things by doing so. It takes time to get your feet wet in any job. That is not to say that the person they replace won't be capable of doing a decent job, but it takes 6 - 18 months to really get a hadle on things and become more efficient. From silly things like getting to know the people that work for you and what environment they work best in, to knowing which of the EU advisors have the ear of the people you need to negotiate with, to even knowing which advisors Boris the Clown or Empress May put more weight on. These things all come out as part of getting your hands dirty with the job. The new person will have to learn these things on the job and because that will result in miscommunication and misinterpretation for a time. That slows the process down and also leaves you more exposed to being negotiated around.
Eh. An ambassadorial position tends to be more about hobnobbing at expensive parties, putting interested business parties in touch with each other, and being the first port of call for official correspondence. The actual legwork/paperwork around things like negotiations is handled by people lower down the foodchain, all of who are still present.
There also isn't a paucity of people who know their way around Brussels; from what I heard we have a positive surfeit of such people in the Foreign Office at the moment. Considering the position comes up for renewal reasonably frequently, I don't think it's of such complexity that his leaving will throw a spanner in the works, there's still a good few months before Brexit kicks off. Plenty of time to fill out the Rolodex and change the stationary.
The other risk is that if as was alluded to they do not like that he argues with Empress May and she doesn't like that then they could risk replacing him with someone more compliant and less willing to highlight any inconvenient truths. If that is the case then the staff working for the new person might get frustrated as well then and also leave and you might have a wave of civil servants retiring/resigning over time at the same time you are trying to negotiate perhaps the most complex set of terms ever is not going to go well! That's before we even consider the risks associated with a nodding dog mentality you might end up with. We all saw what happened with Kirby in charge as a CEO and you run the same risk here. It's fine to start off with as everyone thinks she making all the important decisions but there is a huge difference between making the high level decisions and just letting you staff getting on with it vs making every decision and micro managing the detail (and then damn those that step out of line). I can't recall who said it but somebody once said that if you are a leader you ant to surround people with people that are better than you are and wil argue where they think you have it wrong. Not because they want your job but so you have the best people advising you so you can make the best decision with all the information.
This is of course, highly speculatory. Considering IDS came out and said they weren't talking to the fellow anyway, and judging by May's previous purge of Cameron's buds? It's just as possible that it's not that they're not listening to civil servants, but rather that they just weren't listening to him specifically. It would look exactly the same from his angle. And judging from the stuff conveniently leaking off his desk over the last few months, I wouldn't blame them. Civil servants are not there to play politics.
I also see they have been quick to replace him with Tim Barrow - makes me doubt it was a fair and even selection process! .
Not familiar with the chap, but a quick browse through his career history shows a very extensive history in the Foreign Office. Quite impressive actually.
Spoiler:
1986-89 - Desk jockey at the Foreign Office
1990-1993 - Desk jockey at the British Embassy in Moscow
1993-1994 - Headed up the Russian Section at the Foreign Office
1994-1996-Private Secretary to a Minister
1996-1998- First Secretary of the British Representative to the EU 1998-199- Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary
2000-2003- Head of the Common Foreign and Security Department at the Foreign Office
2003-2005- Assistant Director of the EU External Action Service
2005-2006-Deputy Political Director of the Foreign Office
2006-2008 - UK Ambassador to Ukraine
2008-2011 - British Ambassador the Western EU 2011-2016- UK Ambassador to Russia
Frankly, he actually looks about seven times more qualified for the post than his predecessor. He's spent a lot more time in Brussels and dealing with ambassadorial positions both in the EU and elsewhere. I'd say this is a net win for the UK to get him in there instead of Rogers.
She is however head of DEFRA which is just as much a . I can imagine she drives most people in DEFRA spare and probably gets shuffled off to a quiet room somewhere. On the other hand maybe she believes in creationism and hence agriculture just popped into existence with the human species. I wouldn't be surprised, there is still some question as to whether she really believes in climate change.
That woman is unbelievable. I hope she gets her wings clipped in short order, but judging by the way Grayling is being permitted to run free right now, I don't see it happening.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 19:39:39
Eh. An ambassadorial position tends to be more about hobnobbing at expensive parties, putting interested business parties in touch with each other, and being the first port of call for official correspondence. The actual legwork/paperwork around things like negotiations is handled by people lower down the foodchain, all of who are still present.
There also isn't a paucity of people who know their way around Brussels; from what I heard we have a positive surfeit of such people in the Foreign Office at the moment. Considering the position comes up for renewal reasonably frequently, I don't think it's of such complexity that his leaving will throw a spanner in the works, there's still a good few months before Brexit kicks off. Plenty of time to fill out the Rolodex and change the stationary.
It's more how people work together and the interactions. The 'social' element that binds groups together. There are plenty of (good) people in contracts areas that I work in, but it is difficult to air drop someone in and not have some inefficiencies simply because they work in a slightly different ways than people are use to and how they operate is slightly different. Even mannerisms can cause confusion until people get use to them etc. It's not any question that we don't have people able to work with the EU. Really all this should have been sorted 6-9 months ago.
This is of course, highly speculatory. Considering IDS came out and said they weren't talking to the fellow anyway, and judging by May's previous purge of Cameron's buds? It's just as possible that it's not that they're not listening to civil servants, but rather that they just weren't listening to him specifically. It would look exactly the same from his angle. And judging from the stuff conveniently leaking off his desk over the last few months, I wouldn't blame them. Civil servants are not there to play politics.
Yes it is, hence the statement of 'risk' which is my version of speculation. It's more the areas where I come from where risk management can be important to ensure you meet your aims. It's effectively speculation as to what can go wrong, their likelihood and if it is an unpalatable risk what you can do to reduce its impact/likelihood of happening.
I also see they have been quick to replace him with Tim Barrow - makes me doubt it was a fair and even selection process! .
Frankly, he actually looks about seven times more qualified for the post than his predecessor. He's spent a lot more time in Brussels and dealing with ambassadorial positions both in the EU and elsewhere. I'd say this is a net win for the UK to get him in there instead of Rogers.
Not really what I meant. Given the governments push to try and ensure equality in the workplace (equal pay for both sexes and background) and a fairer representation of the working population (I.e. not most bosses are 50+ white males) the fact that they have plumped for a white, bearded 50+ male is a bit questionable if they haven't gone through a fair selection process rather than just picking a 'mate' from the pub. There may be a more qualified woman etc that might not have even had a look in. It's almost worth an FOI request...hmmmm.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Not really what I meant. Given the governments push to try and ensure equality in the workplace (equal pay for both sexes and background) and a fairer representation of the working population (I.e. not most bosses are 50+ white males) the fact that they have plumped for a white, bearded 50+ male is a bit questionable if they haven't gone through a fair selection process rather than just picking a 'mate' from the pub. There may be a more qualified woman etc that might not have even had a look in. It's almost worth an FOI request...hmmmm.
Wouldn't you agree that parachuting someone suitable in that they know to be adequately experienced and qualified a sufficiently urgent task right now for the nation as to override normal appointment procedures?
With regards to equality, I suppose it is theoretically possible there could be thirty equally well placed women behind him, but May decided that women don't belong in politics and ignored them as candidates. Something about insinuations in that direction seem a little off though, given the fact she's appointed more women to ministerial positions than any other PM, ever (and is indeed, a woman herself?). I suspect it is more likely that the position came up, they needed someone of suitable gravitas and experience to fill it chop chop, pronto, and he appeared the best immediate candidate. As listed above, he certainly would appear to have the pedigree, experience, and connections to do so, moreso than his predecessor ever did.
Speculating on the fact that he was our ambassador to Russia as well, one can safely presume, I think, that he has much diplomatic experience in dealing with occasionally hostile and hardline counterparts without batting an eyelid. Which may prove to be invaluable. He certainly can't be a pushover, or he wouldn't have gotten that posting and maintained it for over half a decade.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/04 23:05:34
Oh for gods sake, people are complaining of sexism again? Its not enough that we've Maggie Thatcher Mk II our second female Prime Minister (and yet again, a conservative) and, according to Ketara, more female ministers than ever? Just what does it take to satisfy these complaints?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 00:16:12
Unfortunately First Minister Arlene Foster is using the old "it's just misogyny" defence against calls for her to resign too. These calls being prompted by the Renewable Heating Incentive scandal. You guys up to date on that? It's threatening to wreck Stormont.
As far as I can ascertain, the appointment is technically made by the Cabinet Secretary (a civil servant), but it requires the assent of the Prime Minister (Theresa May). Given that he was employed in the FCO, it would also have theoretically required the nod from Boris for the post change, but I doubt he's involved in the selection criteria.
One must also keep in mind that it's not simply a case of 'We have X number of candidates who would fit the role', but 'We have this many suitable candidates who could fill the role that are currently in a position to redeploy to this post'. Family concerns, ongoing affairs in the current post, lack of suitable replacements, and so forth can easily whittle down that number.
I personally don't see May 'plumping for a white, bearded 50+ male' because she doesn't think the ladies are up to the job. And it would appear to very much be her decision on who got it. Having looked at their prior posts in depth, he appears to very much be well suited for the job, as opposed to the ex-banker chum of Cameron's who already fudged the prior negotiations and leaks like Lib Dem backbencher when he doesn't get his way.
The resignation of Britain’s top negotiator to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, is still causing heartburn for the government as civil servants speak out against the government.
Yesterday the PM appointed Sir Tim Barrow to replace him, a move largely seen as sensible and safe.
But that hasn’t stopped key civil servants from privately speaking out. The Times reports today:
“This is a mandarin revolt because of what they are hearing from inside. They are reflecting the concerns at the general behaviour of Mrs May’s team and the lack of direction, coupled with the general desire to blame the civil service for everything,” one serving senior civil servant said.
Worse, several former civil servants have gone on the record to criticse the government too:
Sir Simon Fraser, head of the Foreign Office from 2010 until 2015, said that the loss of Sir Ivan would be keenly felt and redirected criticism towards the lack of a plan in Downing Street. “We know that the government did not have a clear plan for Brexit after the referendum; we know that the government has been through a process of gathering information across Whitehall in order to put a negotiating position together, and we know that that is taking quite a lot of time. So that is a matter for concern,” he said.
Lord Kerslake, head of the home civil service from2012 to 2014, said in a letter to The Times that the government’s readiness for Brexit was in question. He added: ”I have no doubt about the underlying commitment and skills of the civil service to serve the government well on Brexit. But to do this they need to be clearly led, resourced properly to do the job and listened to even when their advice is not welcome.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 14:53:16
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Forget ambassadors - the naysayers said that after June 23rd, we'd be heading for recession, people would need wheelbarrows full of bank notes to buy bread, we wouldn't be able to afford to put the salt sachet in salt and shake crisps, and so on...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forget ambassadors - the naysayers said that after June 23rd, we'd be heading for recession, people would need wheelbarrows full of bank notes to buy bread, we wouldn't be able to afford to put the salt sachet in salt and shake crisps, and so on...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forget ambassadors - the naysayers said that after June 23rd, we'd be heading for recession, people would need wheelbarrows full of bank notes to buy bread, we wouldn't be able to afford to put the salt sachet in salt and shake crisps, and so on...
Not to me personally, as I have no credit cards or debts like that, thank God, but yes, you are correct to point that out, it doesn't seem to be bothering other people that much.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Forget ambassadors - the naysayers said that after June 23rd, we'd be heading for recession, people would need wheelbarrows full of bank notes to buy bread, we wouldn't be able to afford to put the salt sachet in salt and shake crisps, and so on...
Not to me personally, as I have no credit cards or debts like that, thank God, but yes, you are correct to point that out, it doesn't seem to be bothering other people that much.
As we saw before, it doesn't matter if people don't have or use credit cards if the banks that they have their money in are using that money to fund risky lending. You could be the best budgeter in the world and still lose everything because the bank loaned all your money to people in the form of sub-prime mortgages which all defaulted resulting in huge losses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 17:22:20
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
.
