Do you want to discuss boring politics? (117 Viewers)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Funny how Cummings pretends to be all Innocent, lets not forget he was part of it last March the twat. It's probably all lies coming from his mouth.

It's what I don't get. He's throwing himself under the bus as much as anyone else. He was a major player and advisor at this time, so whatever happened is on him too, regardless of what he says. If he thinks he shouldn't have been in that position, there was nothing stopping him saying 'No - I'm not suitable'.

Also he's doing it confirming what I've always thought. He is a bitter vile c*** who couldn't give a shit about the truth. This is all a grudge about getting sacked.

Annoyingly the govt will prob get away with it purely because it's coming from his mouth, and no-one believes a word he says. It's like he watched The Thick Of It and used it as a training manual.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It's what I don't get. He's throwing himself under the bus as much as anyone else. He was a major player and advisor at this time, so whatever happened is on him too, regardless of what he says. If he thinks he shouldn't have been in that position, there was nothing stopping him saying 'No - I'm not suitable'.

Also he's doing it confirming what I've always thought. He is a bitter vile c*** who couldn't give a shit about the truth. This is all a grudge about getting sacked.

Annoyingly the govt will prob get away with it purely because it's coming from his mouth, and no-one believes a word he says. It's like he watched The Thick Of It and used it as a training manual.
He’s going nuclear on the orders of his puppet master
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
If you substitute "IT consultant" for senior managers within the NHS that statement is accurate beyond belief!!
How these people, with absolutely no knowledge, understanding and insight into the decisions they make and how they will impact on the people and service they are in charge of stay in post is unbelievable. The way they rewrite history, glossing over the fuck up's they have initiated and learn nothing from their mistakes is endemic and becomes the 'cultural norm'.

This isn't new. It's been happening for a long, long time. And not just in the public sector.

History of CEO's periodically moving on and basically doing like the managerial merry-go-round. Turn up and say 'I've been left a mess by my predecessor' stick around for about 3 years for the pay etc then leave before anyone can turn around and say you should have it sorted by now. Next person comes in and says "I've been left a mess by my predecessor" and the circle jerk continues.

The art of management is knowing when to leave before you can be blamed.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
It's what I don't get. He's throwing himself under the bus as much as anyone else. He was a major player and advisor at this time, so whatever happened is on him too, regardless of what he says. If he thinks he shouldn't have been in that position, there was nothing stopping him saying 'No - I'm not suitable'.

Also he's doing it confirming what I've always thought. He is a bitter vile c*** who couldn't give a shit about the truth. This is all a grudge about getting sacked.

Annoyingly the govt will prob get away with it purely because it's coming from his mouth, and no-one believes a word he says. It's like he watched The Thick Of It and used it as a training manual.

Whilst I agree with your overall point he is at least admitting fault and blame, which is more than Johnson and Hancock will ever do.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree with your overall point he is at least admitting fault and blame, which is more than Johnson and Hancock will ever do.

True. has he said much about Gove? As I'm certain he's looking to get him in to replace Boris as his next puppet since he's decided to let Carrie tell him what to do instead of Cummings.
 

RedSalmon

Well-Known Member
Senior leadership within the civil service is indeed key here. Now, to be clear, there are some very capable people at that level, and who justly hold their position in terms of the person's experience, aptitude, and intelligence. But (perhaps more than in the private sector) promotions at mid-manager level and above in the civil service rely as much on networking than in having in full measure these qualities or a record of delivery.

Those in higher positions but who are inept and inexperienced fall very easily for the out and out consultant bluffers, especially when these pander to held prejudices and simple beliefs. And because it's very difficult to evidence value in a non-profit organisation delivering public goods, any non-delivery or screw-ups is easy to cover up by the use of smoke and mirrors, including defection for blame

So yes, absolutely, those in headship positions (divisional directors an above) are ultimately the issue here.

Agree with every word as applicable to the NHS, but you hit on a really good point and it's the "networking". They all cover each others arse's when the shit hits the fan.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I think eventually Boris will be the Tories Blair. And he’d have earned it. Flag waving only gets you so far. Cool Britannia and all that.

Boris Johnson dreams of being half the politician Blair was. Say what you like about his decisions but Blair was always across the detail of his brief. Thatcher was the Tory Blair, there are Thatcherites and Blairites in both parties still, there’ll never be Johnsonites.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Boris Johnson dreams of being half the politician Blair was. Say what you like about his decisions but Blair was always across the detail of his brief. Thatcher was the Tory Blair, there are Thatcherites and Blairites in both parties still, there’ll never be Johnsonites.

But bollotics will always be full of complete and utter Johnsons
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Blair had Campbell at the heart of government who was implicit in a suspicious motive for a war and also the death of an individual who was bullied and harangued.

Does that make it OK to have Cummings in such an influential role?
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
On the morning of 12 March, said Mr Cummings, the "national security people came in" and said "Trump wants us to join a bombing campaign in the Middle East tonight" and this "totally derailed" meetings about coronavirus.

At the same time, "the prime minister's girlfriend was going completely crackers" over stories in the press about her dog.

--

My favorite putdown so far.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Boris Johnson dreams of being half the politician Blair was. Say what you like about his decisions but Blair was always across the detail of his brief. Thatcher was the Tory Blair, there are Thatcherites and Blairites in both parties still, there’ll never be Johnsonites.

Blair was largely a very good prime minister and politician when it come to policies at home .

The man should still face charges for war crimes like any Middle East dictator would have for the same crimes .

Has there ever been a prime minister taint their legacy in such a way in history
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
Yep Cummings just said that in so many words that he would be prepared to pay for human guinea pig trials on for people for Covid.

Wouldn't just affect the poorest in society. No sir.

The machiavellian tendencies are crazy with him.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Yep Cummings just said that in so many words that he would be prepared to pay for human guinea pig trials on for people for Covid.

Wouldn't just affect the poorest in society. No sir.

The machiavellian tendencies are crazy with him.

He's basically showing traits of a psychopath
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Yep Cummings just said that in so many words that he would be prepared to pay for human guinea pig trials on for people for Covid.

Wouldn't just affect the poorest in society. No sir.

The machiavellian tendencies are crazy with him.

He’s right though. If you’re going to kill thousands or even millions indiscriminately while you go through a slower process, you’d be mad not to try and get an order of magnitude fewer volunteers to speed it up.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
He’s right though. If you’re going to kill thousands or even millions indiscriminately while you go through a slower process, you’d be mad not to try and get an order of magnitude fewer volunteers to speed it up.

Seriously though, it is against everything that a commonwealth is set up for. Basic Human Rights.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Seriously though, it is against everything that a commonwealth is set up for. Basic Human Rights.

? I’ve only had it on in the background while I’m working so might have misheard but I thought he was talking about finding people who would volunteer and get huge payments if things went wrong. Where’s the human rights issue?

Yes poor people would be attracted to it, but that’s true about literally anything involving remuneration. We do this on a smaller scale with medical testing already, I had a mate at Uni who got paid to do testing. This is just increasing the risk/reward calculation.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
? I’ve only had it on in the background while I’m working so might have misheard but I thought he was talking about finding people who would volunteer and get huge payments if things went wrong. Where’s the human rights issue?

Yes poor people would be attracted to it, but that’s true about literally anything involving remuneration. We do this on a smaller scale with medical testing already, I had a mate at Uni who got paid to do testing. This is just increasing the risk/reward calculation.

Can't really believe I need to explain this.

Show me a trail anywhere where there is a significant chance that a healthy person might die from the trial.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Can't really believe I need to explain this.

Show me a trail anywhere where there is a significant chance that a healthy person might die from the trial.

I do wish you wouldn’t do the riddle me this shite. Just say what your point is. I’m guessing it’s that new virus vaccines are significantly higher risk at outset than medical trials are. And yes, I know, that’s why I said the risk reward profile changes. Stopping millions of deaths is possible in a new vaccine but not normal medical tests so the reward is much higher allowing a higher risk for the same moral calculation.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
I do wish you wouldn’t do the riddle me this shite. Just say what your point is. I’m guessing it’s that new virus vaccines are significantly higher risk at outset than medical trials are. And yes, I know, that’s why I said the risk reward profile changes. Stopping millions of deaths is possible in a new vaccine but not normal medical tests so the reward is much higher allowing a higher risk for the same moral calculation.

 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
It's what I don't get. He's throwing himself under the bus as much as anyone else. He was a major player and advisor at this time, so whatever happened is on him too, regardless of what he says. If he thinks he shouldn't have been in that position, there was nothing stopping him saying 'No - I'm not suitable'.

Also he's doing it confirming what I've always thought. He is a bitter vile c*** who couldn't give a shit about the truth. This is all a grudge about getting sacked.

Annoyingly the govt will prob get away with it purely because it's coming from his mouth, and no-one believes a word he says. It's like he watched The Thick Of It and used it as a training manual.

Spot on. I think Hancock is in big trouble though (rightly, as he’s well out of this depth).

Watched quite a bit this morning, very interesting. If I get this right he’s said government was shit, civil service was shit, initial scientific advice was shit, Johnson was shit and should never be PM (even though he helped him get in the job), Hancock was double shit, Sunak was ok and he (Cummings) tried but nobody listened....but he should never have been in that role anyway

Ps I know many don’t like Hunt but he’s too good to be on back benches and we would’ve been far better having him in role than Hancock (not saying much I appreciate)
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Spot on. I think Hancock is in big trouble though (rightly, as he’s well out of this depth).

Watched quite a bit this morning, very interesting. If I get this right he’s said government was shit, civil service was shit, initial scientific advice was shit, Johnson was shit and should never be PM (even though he helped him get in the job), Hancock was double shit, Sunak was ok and he (Cummings) tried but nobody listened....but he should never have been in that role anyway

Ps I know many don’t like Hunt but he’s too good to be on back benches and we would’ve been far better having him in role than Hancock (not saying much I appreciate)

The fact Hunt is not considered that bad isn't great. He's still far from a great candidate - it's just how bad everybody else is. The fact he's an uber-capitalist who has written about how the NHS should be discarded and sold off in favour of a US style system should discount him from the leadership alone. He's a voice that should have a say, just not the final one.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
They are all just cunts.

Their job is to be electable and to represent the country and the people in the best way. Yet nearly none of them across any party seems to do a good job, let alone actually mean well in the first place which should be the basics.

Where is V for Vendetta when you need him.




giphy.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top