Jump to content

Boris Johnson and the death of the United Kingdom as we know it.


SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election  

133 members have voted

  1. 1. SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election

    • Conservatives
      31
    • Labour
      27
    • Liberals
      49
    • UKIP
      1
    • Green
      14
    • Brexit
      8
    • Change UK
      0
    • Other
      3


Recommended Posts

Good to see a Tory supporting bullying in the workplace. It goes along with what Theresa May herself said. The Tories are turning into the Nasty Party.

 

I'm trying hard to recall something about you and bullying, Soggy? Now, what was it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that what I just said? Something wrong with your comprehension today, Gavyn?

 

Just because the police haven't arrested the alleged perpetrator doesn't mean that he didn't commit the offence, does it? You'd have to be very naive if your believed that.

 

And I note that you haven't bothered to answer my question as to what your reaction would be if some pervert sexually assaulted your children/grandchildren.

 

I refer you to your hypocrisy about bile in posts and thank you for the evidence that you are one of the most persistent offenders.

 

Don't be such a snowflake, lunatic is hardly bile. Follow ducky's advice, he knows how to handle hard chicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all. The most demanding bosses I ever had were women. One in particular was considered a “bully”. However, and here’s the key thing, she only bullied useless twts that needed managing out the business. She “bullied” Managers (manly men) that would not have difficult conversations or make difficult decisions. The rest of us, knew exactly where we stood, she was a straight talker that would dish out praise & rollockings in equal measure. The “bullied” ones, just didn’t see much of the praise, not because she didn’t like them, or because of any agenda, but because they were hopeless.

 

Evidently Priti asked the snowflakes why they were so “****ing useless”. **** me, they need to man up. If a senior civil servant of many years can’t take a bit of swearing, or being told they’re useless, they’re in the wrong job.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is no excuse for bullying. If someone is useless at their job they can either be sacked, made redundant or moved to another role. I’m not surprised that you stand up for this sort of behaviour. Anyone who still calls women chicks is obviously stuck in a bygone age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whereas all your posts are completely devoid of any bile whatsoever, aren't they?

 

 

Whereas all your posts are completely devoid of any bile whatsoever, aren't they?

 

And while we’re on the subject, double whooooosh. I’m truly shocked that my comment would go over Les’ little head...

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
*yawn* And still no reply to my question.

 

Why am I going to comment on something for which the police has not found evidence to charge or arrest anyone? Should the facts change, then I’ll happily comment. In the meantime, if pondering unproven hypotheticals helps you cope with your own stupidity and ignore basic distinctions and while away your time, fill your boots. Alas my time is a bit more valuable than yours pal.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife has been bullied in two different jobs in the last few years, in both cases by women. It left her depressed and suicidal. There is no excuse for bullying anywhere, but certainly not in your place of employment and by your seniors. The case seems to be growing daily about Patel’s behaviour. It does no credit to those who continue to play down her behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should direct that comment to the other Tories on here who have already decided that she is completely innocent of any wrongdoing?
It's a general comment. We all know that if this was Corbyn being accused of this you wouldn't be acting the way you currently are.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn apparently is an anti Semite yet has not been found guilty of being so. Bercow is a bully yet has not been found guilty of being so. Patel is innocent until proven guilty. Hmmmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Corbyn apparently is an anti Semite yet has not been found guilty of being so. Bercow is a bully yet has not been found guilty of being so. Patel is innocent until proven guilty. Hmmmm.
Eh? None of them have been found guilty. I never called for Corbyn to be sacked as leader of the opposition- he didn't need my help. You're the one calling for Patel to stand down before she's been found to be guilty anything. Don't try to turn it round and pretend that it's other people who are the hypocrites.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And as always with these things, it's not as cut and dried as the listen and believe crowd like to claim. We now have ex work colleagues coming out and denying bullying claims and calling her an incredibly Compassionate boss. Doesn't exonerate her of course but thank goodness we don't listen to the reactionary factions who go straight to firing based on an accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to see a Tory supporting bullying in the workplace. It goes along with what Theresa May herself said. The Tories are turning into the Nasty Party.

 

There is no excuse for bullying. If someone is useless at their job they can either be sacked, made redundant or moved to another role. I’m not surprised that you stand up for this sort of behaviour. Anyone who still calls women chicks is obviously stuck in a bygone age.

 

My wife has been bullied in two different jobs in the last few years, in both cases by women. It left her depressed and suicidal. There is no excuse for bullying anywhere, but certainly not in your place of employment and by your seniors. The case seems to be growing daily about Patel’s behaviour. It does no credit to those who continue to play down her behaviour.

 

You need to define “bullying”. One man’s bullying is another man’s managing.

 

There are way too many managers over promoted in every single industry I’ve ever worked in. Pressure to do what you’re paid to do isn’t “bullying”. As my old man used to say “if you don’t deal with under performance, then someone will deal with you”.

 

According to the FT all the Government Spads were asked by Dom Cummings to let him know the following. How many people did their department employee, how many quangos were linked to the department and given the choice which quango would they lose. They claim that despite being given a month 3 of them failed to provide the said answers and therefore in a subsequent meeting Cummings balled them out. They then claimed they were bullied, that’s not bullying, that’s holding people to account.

 

We’re becoming a nation of snowflakes. Soft arsed pinko snowflakes.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to define “bullying”. One man’s bullying is another man’s managing.

 

There are way too many managers over promoted in every single industry I’ve ever worked in. Pressure to do what you’re paid to do isn’t “bullying”. As my old man used to say “if you don’t deal with under performance, then someone will deal with you”.

 

According to the FT all the Government Spads were asked by Dom Cummings to let him know the following. How many people did their department employee, how many quangos were linked to the department and given the choice which quango would they lose. They claim that despite being given a month 3 of them failed to provide the said answers and therefore in a subsequent meeting Cummings balled them out. They then claimed they were bullied, that’s not bullying, that’s holding people to account.

 

We’re becoming a nation of snowflakes. Soft arsed pinko snowflakes.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

There’s a clear definition here old man: https://www.gov.uk/workplace-bullying-and-harassment

 

I don't know much about this Philip Rutnam fella but he’s obviously not stupid and he’s been around the block a bit so I would expect him to have some evidence before resigning and suing the government - I guess we will have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to define “bullying”. One man’s bullying is another man’s managing.

 

There are way too many managers over promoted in every single industry I’ve ever worked in. Pressure to do what you’re paid to do isn’t “bullying”. As my old man used to say “if you don’t deal with under performance, then someone will deal with you”.

 

According to the FT all the Government Spads were asked by Dom Cummings to let him know the following. How many people did their department employee, how many quangos were linked to the department and given the choice which quango would they lose. They claim that despite being given a month 3 of them failed to provide the said answers and therefore in a subsequent meeting Cummings balled them out. They then claimed they were bullied, that’s not bullying, that’s holding people to account.

 

We’re becoming a nation of snowflakes. Soft arsed pinko snowflakes.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

We are breeding a load of gullible cowardly collaborator sorts who think they’re tough calling everyone snowflakes.

 

Previous posts have indicated you are pretty scared to speak up to challenge obnoxious behaviour. #ToughGuy

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to define “bullying”. One man’s bullying is another man’s managing.

 

There are way too many managers over promoted in every single industry I’ve ever worked in. Pressure to do what you’re paid to do isn’t “bullying”. As my old man used to say “if you don’t deal with under performance, then someone will deal with you”.

 

According to the FT all the Government Spads were asked by Dom Cummings to let him know the following. How many people did their department employee, how many quangos were linked to the department and given the choice which quango would they lose. They claim that despite being given a month 3 of them failed to provide the said answers and therefore in a subsequent meeting Cummings balled them out. They then claimed they were bullied, that’s not bullying, that’s holding people to account.

 

We’re becoming a nation of snowflakes. Soft arsed pinko snowflakes.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It is quite simple, if you are well managed you don’t walk away from a situation feeling that you have been bullied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have added it is perfectly possible to hold people to account without bulling them and good managers should not let work situations get to the point where disciplinary action is necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is quite simple, if you are well managed you don’t walk away from a situation feeling that you have been bullied.
That's not true at all. I've had an absolutely shocking member of staff who never took responsibility for anything, alleged bullying, took me to a tribunal and got destroyed. She still felt she was bullied even when it was blindingly obvious to everyone else that she was a terrible employee.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I should have added it is perfectly possible to hold people to account without bulling them and good managers should not let work situations get to the point where disciplinary action is necessary.
Well that's just utter nonsense. Skilful management can be effective at avoiding disciplinary action but it's just not the case that having to use disciplinary action means you aren't a good manager. Sometimes disciplinary action is exactly what is required in a situation and it prevents things from escalating further because the employee tends not to take the p*ss if they know there are consequences to their actions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not true at all. I've had an absolutely shocking member of staff who never took responsibility for anything, alleged bullying, took me to a tribunal and got destroyed. She still felt she was bullied even when it was blindingly obvious to everyone else that she was a terrible employee.

 

That’s right. I’ve heard plenty of bullying accusations and every single time a useless member of staff was involved. It’s never the decent workers, always the dross. I’ve investigated claims against other Managers, twice been accused myself and once was a witness against a senior manager. Every time it’s been a twt making the claim. Only one of the 6 or 7 accusations was upheld, and even that was a useless manager that needed moving on. The issue was the senior manger over stepped the mark and didn’t mange him out properly.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s right. I’ve heard plenty of bullying accusations and every single time a useless member of staff was involved. It’s never the decent workers, always the dross. I’ve investigated claims against other Managers, twice been accused myself and once was a witness against a senior manager. Every time it’s been a twt making the claim. Only one of the 6 or 7 accusations was upheld, and even that was a useless manager that needed moving on. The issue was the senior manger over stepped the mark and didn’t mange him out properly.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I suspect you’ve never worked in central government and don’t have a clue about the dynamic between ministers and civil servants. It’s completely different from a normal work relationship or the relationship between a line manager and a subordinate. So your little homespun anecdotes are sweet but irrelevant.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s right. I’ve heard plenty of bullying accusations and every single time a useless member of staff was involved. It’s never the decent workers, always the dross.

Pony !!!!!

 

Incompetent bosses trying to cover up their weaknesses, especially in technical environments where they feel they lack knowledge, can attempt to throw their weight around in order to try to assert themselves.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect you’ve never worked in central government and don’t have a clue about the dynamic between ministers and civil servants. It’s completely different from a normal work relationship or the relationship between a line manager and a subordinate. So your little homespun anecdotes are sweet but irrelevant.

 

Congratulations. You're taking hubris to new levels on here. You speak as if the dynamic between Ministers and Civil Servants is a constant, despite the Ministers changing with every government, they coming from a spectrum of backgrounds and different political views and most of them not having had any experience of central government before.

 

However, the inter-personal relationships between the two parties will be the same as it is in other fields from the point of view that on both sides behavioural traits will be the same as in the rest of the employment marketplace. There will be strong and weak characters, efficient and inefficient personnel, those blessed with calmness and patience and those with a short fuse temperament, the arrogant ones and the self-deprecating. Therefore this dynamic you speak of must vary between individuals and departments and is also changing over time as the educational and domestic backgrounds of Ministers and Civil Servants changes.

 

So you've had experience of central government. Bully for you. But it isn't difficult, judging from your posts on here, to make a reasonable assessment of the sort of working relationships you would have had during your career. I'm assessing it that you will have rubbed up many of your employees the wrong way with your insufferable arrogance and rudeness. In short, you're the bullying type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine thinking that disciplinary action at work means you haven't managed a situation properly. Goodness me.

 

I don’t know if you have ever worked in management? I have and have been on several courses on how to manage poorly performing and/or difficult individuals. None of the courses mentioned that bullying was the answer. If situations become difficult most organisations have an HR policy to help both managers and employees deal with difficult situations. If there are long standing situations you have to ask why management/employees have left things so long before addressing poor behaviour.

 

If the civil service is as useless as some would have us believe, why has it taken the Tories 10 years to do anything about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine thinking that disciplinary action at work means you haven't managed a situation properly. Goodness me.

 

I don’t know if you have ever worked in management? I have and have been on several courses on how to manage poorly performing and/or difficult individuals. None of the courses mentioned that bullying was the answer. If situations become difficult most organisations have an HR policy to help both managers and employees deal with difficult situations. If there are long standing situations you have to ask why management/employees have left things so long before addressing poor behaviour.

 

If the civil service is as useless as some would have us believe, why has it taken the Tories 10 years to do anything about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh? None of them have been found guilty. I never called for Corbyn to be sacked as leader of the opposition- he didn't need my help. You're the one calling for Patel to stand down before she's been found to be guilty anything. Don't try to turn it round and pretend that it's other people who are the hypocrites.

 

Virtually every day the media or social media was calling out Corbyn for being an anti-Semite. Remember? You yourself said that Bercow had been pulled up for bullying when trying to pint score again me. Remember?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know if you have ever worked in management? I have and have been on several courses on how to manage poorly performing and/or difficult individuals. None of the courses mentioned that bullying was the answer. If situations become difficult most organisations have an HR policy to help both managers and employees deal with difficult situations. If there are long standing situations you have to ask why management/employees have left things so long before addressing poor behaviour.

 

If the civil service is as useless as some would have us believe, why has it taken the Tories 10 years to do anything about it?

 

Of course I have abd I never said bullying was the answer but to suggest that disciplinary action is a failure of management is insane. What sort of management course taught you not to use disciplinary action when warranted? Have you never had to manage a member of staff who was fine up until the point they do something that constitutes a stackable offence? If you subsequently sack them, in what universe is that a failure of management?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s right. I’ve heard plenty of bullying accusations and every single time a useless member of staff was involved. It’s never the decent workers, always the dross. I’ve investigated claims against other Managers, twice been accused myself and once was a witness against a senior manager. Every time it’s been a twt making the claim. Only one of the 6 or 7 accusations was upheld, and even that was a useless manager that needed moving on. The issue was the senior manger over stepped the mark and didn’t mange him out properly.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Therefore no decent worker had ever been bullied in the work place? Lol.

 

My wife worked for 33 years in the CPS and worked her way up to a senior management position. Every one of her annual appraisals for full of praise for her commitment, quality of work, interpersonal skills etc. All except the last when she was systematically bullied by several senior managers in her department. I was working there at the time and witnessed it first hand. There seems to be something inherent with people of a far right persusasion. People on benefits are scrounges. Only poor performing workers get bullied. All immigrants are lazy, sexual predators, thieves etc. Patel has managed to upset people in three different departments. There is a pattern of behaviour there. I don’t think that she should be sacked until an independent enquiry has taken place, but she should certainly be stood down from her very high and responsible office while she is under investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtually every day the media or social media was calling out Corbyn for being an anti-Semite. Remember? You yourself said that Bercow had been pulled up for bullying when trying to pint score again me. Remember?
And he has been. What's your point? You can criticise Patel as much as you like but calling for her to immediately resign based on accusations alone and before any investigation has taken place is something else entirely. You weren't calling for Corbyn to step down were you based on the many accusations against him?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I have abd I never said bullying was the answer but to suggest that disciplinary action is a failure of management is insane. What sort of management course taught you not to use disciplinary action when warranted? Have you never had to manage a member of staff who was fine up until the point they do something that constitutes a stackable offence? If you subsequently sack them, in what universe is that a failure of management?

 

Go back and read what I said. Every situation is different but all difficult situations have to be addressed. Patel has a long history of bullying. Why hasn’t it been addressed properly before? It should not have been allowed to get this far. Not dealing with it earlier is an issue. In a normal workplace if you get to a point where someone has to be sacked, the system has failed. With senior cabinet ministers the standard used to be higher, to the point where you were expected to resign if you were caught lying or if your behaviour feel below an accepted level. During the last 10 years of Tory rule the standards have slipped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read what I said. Every situation is different but all difficult situations have to be addressed. Patel has a long history of bullying. Why hasn’t it been addressed properly before? It should not have been allowed to get this far. Not dealing with it earlier is an issue. In a normal workplace if you get to a point where someone has to be sacked, the system has failed. With senior cabinet ministers the standard used to be higher, to the point where you were expected to resign if you were caught lying or if your behaviour feel below an accepted level. During the last 10 years of Tory rule the standards have slipped.

 

How do you know that accusations of bullying have gone through the correct channels? There isn't always the opportunity to deal with things earlier, it's at least partially up to the attitude of the employee even if that's very much the intention of the employer. Every organisation worth their salt has a whistle blowing procedure and a bullying policy. We have no knowledge about bullying that Patel is directly responsible for that has subsequently been covered up. Hopefully an investigation will see if that is the case but I certainly wouldn't hang someone out to dry on the say of a few disgruntled employees with a differing version of events. We had somebody once who deliberately ignored protocols, caused a major safeguarding incident and we had no choice but to sack her. That certainly wasn't the fault of management, it was the correct and responsible thing to do under the circumstances.

 

How do you know that Patel's behaviour has fallen below and acceptable level? You don't know that and clearly there are different interpretations. You are suggesting she should step down now because you disagree with her ideogically and we know this because you would not be doing the same if it were corbyn or others on the left being accused of similar things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that Ministers nearly always want to make their mark by changing something, but usually don't have any understanding of their departments when they are appointed. The Civil Servants by contrast have often spent 20 years working on the issues. By the time the Minister starts to understand the department they are transferred elsewhere or sacked. Things aren't going to improve unless and until Ministers focus on one portfolio and stick with it for 5 years or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem is that Ministers nearly always want to make their mark by changing something, but usually don't have any understanding of their departments when they are appointed. The Civil Servants by contrast have often spent 20 years working on the issues. By the time the Minister starts to understand the department they are transferred elsewhere or sacked. Things aren't going to improve unless and until Ministers focus on one portfolio and stick with it for 5 years or more.
Absolutely agree with that. Even better get some people in charge of departments who have experience in the sector they are leading like they do in Germany.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The real problem is that Ministers nearly always want to make their mark by changing something, but usually don't have any understanding of their departments when they are appointed. The Civil Servants by contrast have often spent 20 years working on the issues. By the time the Minister starts to understand the department they are transferred elsewhere or sacked. Things aren't going to improve unless and until Ministers focus on one portfolio and stick with it for 5 years or more.

 

You are probably right about the historical generalisation that you make, but the current situation is a lot more specific and involves several departments implementing one fundamental government policy to which the Civil Service is largely opposed - leaving the EU. This one policy affects the Home Office via immigration, the Treasury, Trade, DEFRA, Defence and other departments to a lesser extent. Hardly any of these ministries are run by mandarins sympathetic to us leaving the EU, so they have not exactly assisted the smooth progress of Brexit up to now, especially when there was a government with a small majority, or latterly none at all. Since December 12th however, the change in the political landscape has been seismic. Small wonder then that a government elected with such a huge mandate to "get Brexit done", will feel inclined to adopt a firm line with any remainer Civil Servant mandarin who attempts to obstruct or delay on their instructions on which the various Ministers were elected and their Civil Servants were employed to carry out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations. You're taking hubris to new levels on here. You speak as if the dynamic between Ministers and Civil Servants is a constant, despite the Ministers changing with every government, they coming from a spectrum of backgrounds and different political views and most of them not having had any experience of central government before.

 

However, the inter-personal relationships between the two parties will be the same as it is in other fields from the point of view that on both sides behavioural traits will be the same as in the rest of the employment marketplace. There will be strong and weak characters, efficient and inefficient personnel, those blessed with calmness and patience and those with a short fuse temperament, the arrogant ones and the self-deprecating. Therefore this dynamic you speak of must vary between individuals and departments and is also changing over time as the educational and domestic backgrounds of Ministers and Civil Servants changes.

 

So you've had experience of central government. Bully for you. But it isn't difficult, judging from your posts on here, to make a reasonable assessment of the sort of working relationships you would have had during your career. I'm assessing it that you will have rubbed up many of your employees the wrong way with your insufferable arrogance and rudeness. In short, you're the bullying type.

 

Hello Les

 

You're getting very excitable - all I said is that the relationship between ministers and civil servants is pretty unique in terms of an employment relationship.

 

Let's get a few things clear pal. Ministers will not see the vast majority of Whitehall civil servants - unless they work in private office, are delivering something extremely time-sensitive (e.g. the publication of a White Paper) or are very senior (note Rutnam was speaking on behalf of the entire department and the treatment of colleagues). Even a grade 5 - the first rung in the senior civil service- will be lucky to see a minister once a fortnight or so. When they do meet, it will be for a discrete and specific reason. Ministers are unlikely to know the name of the majority of civil servants - never mind know whether they’re any good at their jobs. Unless ministers have been in the department for a long time and/or are particularly clued up, they will also know much less about a complex policy area than the majority of civil servants (by the same token, this can make some civil servants quite insular and stuck in their ways). It’s among the reasons why performance appraisal and day-to-day management are the responsibility of civil servants, not ministers - the need to ensure the political neutrality of the civil service being the obvious other reason. Its hard to think of many employment relations that look like this.

 

From my experience and understanding of the situation, the issue is the same old story of a minister -regardless of party background- committing to an unrealistic timetable for political considerations and civil servants getting caught in the crossfire of what’s politically desirable and what’s operationally feasible while attempting to muddle through and achieve the ministers objectives. The result, especially on hot-button issues like immigration or welfare reform, is that civil servants are often on a hiding to nothing. However, competent ministers will engage seriously with civil servants advice and appreciate the spirit in which it is given. Bad ministers lash out. It may be because they are dim yet arrogant and thin-skinned without redeeming people skills; it may be because they are incapable of thinking in policy -rather than political- terms that requires longer time-horizons and handle pressure badly, especially if they are unable to stand up to No.10 that tends to be even more politically-motivated and short-termist. Having a Cabinet made up strictly of the PM's favourites -to some extent unavoidable- only further disrupts this balance.

 

The dynamic is nearly always the same. Whether lashing out constitutes bullying, of course, is an empirical matter. All I’ll say is that I’ve seen ministers lose their rag with civil servants and nobody has batted an eyelid as it’s ‘priced’ into the relationship. That is, most civil servants I’ve met would not escalate a matter lightly. I've seen much more courteous relationships in the private sector (that may also be a function of HR being better in the private sector in my experience).

 

As for Patel, I'll await the full story, though it is interesting that even some of her friends are not surprised by the revelations and believe she's repeatedly crossed the line of what is acceptable conduct for a public servant in today's workplace (per the FT). But that's moot in the context of this post.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are probably right about the historical generalisation that you make, but the current situation is a lot more specific and involves several departments implementing one fundamental government policy to which the Civil Service is largely opposed - leaving the EU. This one policy affects the Home Office via immigration, the Treasury, Trade, DEFRA, Defence and other departments to a lesser extent. Hardly any of these ministries are run by mandarins sympathetic to us leaving the EU, so they have not exactly assisted the smooth progress of Brexit up to now, especially when there was a government with a small majority, or latterly none at all. Since December 12th however, the change in the political landscape has been seismic. Small wonder then that a government elected with such a huge mandate to "get Brexit done", will feel inclined to adopt a firm line with any remainer Civil Servant mandarin who attempts to obstruct or delay on their instructions on which the various Ministers were elected and their Civil Servants were employed to carry out.

 

Classic Wes post. Lots of supposition and zero facts. Do tell, what policy are the 'mandarins' frustrating and how?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Classic Wes post. Lots of supposition and zero facts. Do tell, what policy are the 'mandarins' frustrating and how?

 

Its a shame that there's no imaginable set of circumstances in which Les would or could ever pass the fast stream civil service exam. For if there was one, he might actually understand how government and the civil service work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Les

 

You're getting very excitable - all I said is that the relationship between ministers and civil servants is pretty unique in terms of an employment relationship.

 

 

To which I responded by arguing that despite the circumstances peculiar to the government/civil service relationship, the human interaction between the government ministers and the civil servants employed to implement their policies was still influenced by the same personality traits that characterised most other workplace relationships. I didn't need to have chapter and verse in a patronising essay of how the Civil Service works, but I do acknowledge how expensive this must have been, you spending so much of your valuable time to write it.

 

Likewise, I'll take the same position as you regarding Patel, that it is best to await the full story. You are however content to accept rumours in the FT as probably having some substance to them, whereas I am inclined towards other opinions expressed that a lot of these stories are the result of a political campaign agenda by a remain establishment to discredit her and thus the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a shame that there's no imaginable set of circumstances in which Les would or could ever pass the fast stream civil service exam. For if there was one, he might actually understand how government and the civil service work.

 

There's no imaginable circumstances whereby I would ever wish to have rejoined the Civil Service once I had left it, any more than I would wish to have become an accountant or a schoolteacher. I'm very happy with how my career has gone these past forty years, thank you. Regarding the second sentence, the classic Gavyn insult. Anybody who disagrees with you is thick, because you are an intellectual giant and never cease to tell us so. How much a points boost is that on the narcissism scale, Gavyn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's get a few things clear pal. Ministers will not see the vast majority of Whitehall civil servants - unless they work in private office, are delivering something extremely time-sensitive (e.g. the publication of a White Paper) or are very senior (note Rutnam was speaking on behalf of the entire department and the treatment of colleagues). Even a grade 5 - the first rung in the senior civil service- will be lucky to see a minister once a fortnight or so. When they do meet, it will be for a discrete and specific reason. Ministers are unlikely to know the name of the majority of civil servants - never mind know whether they’re any good at their jobs. Unless ministers have been in the department for a long time and/or are particularly clued up, they will also know much less about a complex policy area than the majority of civil servants (by the same token, this can make some civil servants quite insular and stuck in their ways). It’s among the reasons why performance appraisal and day-to-day management are the responsibility of civil servants, not ministers - the need to ensure the political neutrality of the civil service being the obvious other reason. Its hard to think of many employment relations that look like this.

 

 

To be fair, I agree with most of your post, however, does this make it more or less likely that a 'minister' will have the time / interaction / exposure with a 'junior employee' of the DWP, to be able to bully them to such an extent that they would try to take their life?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, I agree with most of your post, however, does this make it more or less likely that a 'minister' will have the time / interaction / exposure with a 'junior employee' of the DWP, to be able to bully them to such an extent that they would try to take their life?

"

The staff member also alleges she was told the decision to dismiss her a year later was not made on performance grounds but because Ms Patel did not "like [her] face", according to comments attributed to her line manager and a colleague.

On that day in October 2015, Ms Patel had shouted at the woman in her private office and told her to "get lost" and "get out of her face", the correspondence alleges.

Ms Patel is described as having acted "without warning" and with an "unprovoked level of aggression", in the woman's formal grievance complaint."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51705069

Link to post
Share on other sites
"

The staff member also alleges she was told the decision to dismiss her a year later was not made on performance grounds but because Ms Patel did not "like [her] face", according to comments attributed to her line manager and a colleague.

On that day in October 2015, Ms Patel had shouted at the woman in her private office and told her to "get lost" and "get out of her face", the correspondence alleges.

Ms Patel is described as having acted "without warning" and with an "unprovoked level of aggression", in the woman's formal grievance complaint."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51705069

 

To be fair, that's a description of one solitary incident that happened on one day, hardly the sustained bullying campaign that would cause a reasonable person to try and take their own life....

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, that's a description of one solitary incident that happened on one day, hardly the sustained bullying campaign that would cause a reasonable person to try and take their own life....

I agree to an extent, but it does show that PP did interact directly with the woman. However, if I read it correctly, this wasn't the first time she had attempted suicide after alleging bullying, so maybe she had other issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported on the BBC news tonight that the Tories don’t seem to be doing too much about the Islsmophobia in the party. Also an old Etonian chum and tennis partner of Johnson has a company which has just been given a juicy sum of public money. We are also still waiting to hear about whether Johnson has acted improperly about the funding given to his “tech adviser.”

 

What was that you were saying about draining the swamp Duckie? Any idea when that is likely to start?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reported on the BBC news tonight that the Tories don’t seem to be doing too much about the Islsmophobia in the party. Also an old Etonian chum and tennis partner of Johnson has a company which has just been given a juicy sum of public money. We are also still waiting to hear about whether Johnson has acted improperly about the funding given to his “tech adviser.”

 

What was that you were saying about draining the swamp Duckie? Any idea when that is likely to start?

 

Lol...

 

The swamps been drained. Did you miss the country sacking Gauke, Soubry, Grievence, Lee, Wollaston, Swinson, Allen, & other assorted pinko remoaners.

 

80 seat majority, read it and weep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, I agree with most of your post, however, does this make it more or less likely that a 'minister' will have the time / interaction / exposure with a 'junior employee' of the DWP, to be able to bully them to such an extent that they would try to take their life?

 

My understanding is that the DWP official worked in her private office, so would have had quite a bit of contact with her (I mention private office roles in my post). Physically they are located outside the minister’s office along with the SPADs. Work involves organising diaries, preparing briefing notes, reviewing submissions and liaising with the rest of the department and other departments. These posts are almost always filled by junior civil servants. The content of the work is pretty straightforward but it’s a nonetheless demanding role as it sits directly between the minister and the rest of the department, so will be a lightening rod for any wider issues and tensions. It’s quite a notch on your CV to show you worked in private office early in your career.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})