Author Topic: Rudd's replacement  (Read 531 times)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Rudd's replacement
« on: 29 Apr 2018 11:12PM »
IDS?   >lol< >lol< >lol<

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #1 on: 30 Apr 2018 07:46AM »
Many a true word spoken in jest.

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #2 on: 30 Apr 2018 08:05AM »
 >yikes< >crying< :-(

True sadly true.  Unfortunately May will not be moving McVey as she was a leave supporter in the Brexit battle and from what I've been hearing on the telly May is looking to keep the balance in the cabinet equally split between leavers and remainers.

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8490
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #3 on: 30 Apr 2018 09:42AM »
I suppose it was inevitable that at least one member of Her Majesty's Government should fall on their sword after the dreadful Windrush fiasco.  As for a replacement, that will be a tough decision for Mrs May with such a motley crew to choose from..

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #4 on: 30 Apr 2018 10:25AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43946845

Sajid Javid chosen to be new home secretary after Amber Rudd resigns

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #5 on: 30 Apr 2018 11:21AM »
« Last Edit: 30 Apr 2018 11:23AM by lankou »

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #6 on: 30 Apr 2018 12:37PM »
He's a waste of space.

ATurtle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
    • The Awesome Turtle Blog
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #7 on: 01 May 2018 12:03PM »
 As are the rest of those occupying the Government benches.
Tony.

"I choose not to place "DIS", in my ability." - Robert M. Hensel

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8490
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #8 on: 01 May 2018 04:42PM »
Any MP mean-spirited enough to vote for a cut in ESA gets the  >thumbsdown< from me.  How do their consciences allow them to support something like that  >confused<

As for rogue landlords, don't get me started!

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #9 on: 01 May 2018 05:28PM »
It's a basic mentality that's been around for a long time whereby rich and successful people think they're motivated by bonuses but poor and unsuccessful people are motivated by punishments.

Actually, it has a sort of screwball logic, it's just that it's an incomplete logic.

Let me give a workplace illustration.  I worked for a not-for-profit (non-charitable, non-governmental/civil service) organisation.  For many years, they'd had a promotion and pay structure similar to classic civil service ones.  Each job was paid on a band, you got an increment for satisfactory performance each year for the first six years, and then if your performance was outstanding there were three more possible increments.  The bands overlapped.

The bosses decided they wanted to get rid of those scales and to bring in a bonus system.  In vain did I and others explain that it would work like this.  10 people, all expecting an increment.  Maybe a couple weren't working terribly hard and the other 8 were working hard.  New system, bonuses, first year maybe four think they're not in with a chance and six think they are, and at the end of the year, two get a bonus and eight don't.  The next year, six think they're not in with a chance and four think they are.  By the end of year two, instead of 8 working very hard and performing well, and 2 coasting, you've got 4 working very hard, 2 that are still coasting, and 4 that feel cheated, have lost their loyalty and are performing significantly less well than before the new system was brought in.  I asked management whether the savings in replacing the increments with the new bonuses, which were larger than the increments, were worth the reduced productivity which would mean either sacking poorest performers and expensively recruiting replacements, or recruiting extra staff.

And that's where bonuses for productivity are a problem - amongst those that know they won't get them.

So the alternative those in power offer is sticks instead of carrots. What they forget is that sticks can also demoralise, as can poorly designed systems.  If you starve someone to motivate them to job-hunt, it may sound good, but the reality is that whilst they're starving, they don't have the resources to job-hunt.  Ah, but it takes them off the unemployment statistics.  No problem, it adds them to other statistics like NHS malnutrition cases, NHS 'sections', crime etc.

Call me naive but I do think that there are quite a few people at the top that, however horrible they are, also think that what they're doing will work.  Aargh!

It's like I know I'm one of the rare people that thinks that IDS thought his super-duper universal credit idea would help people.   It would have been his terrific legacy.  Where I think he was in the range of horrible to evil was in not doing his homework and not making sure it did actually help people.

While I'm in longwinded analogy mode, may I also jump on another pet hobbyhorse that illustrates this?  Punishments for crime.  When there are lots of headlines about horrible crimes, you get people saying the punishments aren't hard enough and if they were worse, the crime rates would be lower.  I have long been of the opinion that whilst punishments shouldn't be unduly lenient, I believe that criminals are far more influenced by their perception (accurate or not) of the likelihood of their being caught, and of their perception (accurate or not) of whether the punishment will be worse than what they've got.  There comes a point at which someone's life is so awful in ways that many (not all) successful rich people cannot imagine or believe is very rare, that even capital punishment wouldn't seem worse.

So cutting someone's benefits seems perfectly logical to someone who buys into the idea that people who aren't going to climb high enough up the ladder for bonuses to work and that therefore the alternative is to offer them what they've got or worse horrors.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: Rudd's replacement
« Reply #10 on: 01 May 2018 06:18PM »
''It's like I know I'm one of the rare people that thinks that IDS thought his super-duper universal credit idea would help people.   It would have been his terrific legacy.  Where I think he was in the range of horrible to evil was in not doing his homework and not making sure it did actually help people.''

IDS never thought further than the idea stage. Once IDS had his idea he expected Whitehall to sort out the detail. The civil servants of Whitehall (DWP Branch)  did what they could with the sketchy details as recited by IDS and each time they felt they had made any semblance of progress they found themselves scuppered as IDS saw the DWP budget cut by Osborne. Between Osborne's cuts and money hungry private sector companies (IT and Claimant Assessment providers) looking to extract as much as they could, without putting serious effort into the work they were contracted to do, out of the Chancellor before their contracts came up for renewal those working at the DWP simply could not make any real difference to the way things were going. Each time they, the DWP civil servants, made progress the goal posts were moved by way of new demands for IDS to cut his budget by Osborne.

Just as many MPs of opposition parties have echoed IDS's idea as being a good one they have never spent any honest effort in working out just how his idea could be brought to fruition and actually achieve its aims.  For my tuppence worth the nearest Idea I would have suggested was that the new welfare benefits system would have been introduced purely for first time claimants and those on the old system remaining on the old system until such times as either their health improved to the point they felt able to seek employment or the new system was running as intended with all the glitches dealt with for all levels of claimants.