Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mockingbird_franklin]

2015 tory party election poster

 

Edited November 22, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

The best thing about the Co-op bank story is how it destroys the myth that people in top jobs are there on merit, are talented and deserve their rewards.

 

The drug thing is a distraction from this and the funding is irrelevant because the Tories get their funding from their own banking brothel .

 

We have Balls and colleagues being too dumb to know how fu**ed the banks were and pressuring the Co-op to buy another bank which had vaults full of cack. But as every single Tory is guilty of the same level of ignorance and hubris as Labour, the sin of being a brain-dead, arrogant, over-rewarded twunt, cancels each other out. 

 

Then you have Paul Flowers proving that you don't have to know anything about banking to get the job of running a bank and the responsibilities are so light and so well rewarded that you can dedicate your life to Bacchanalian and priapic excess.

 

The fact that the bank failed no worse than the rest, seems to prove that having someone not doing the top job is no worse than having someone doing the job.

 

So when the top dogs at the banks claimed that they should not be blamed for the financial collapse, they were probably telling the truth, and that in actual fact they had so little to do with running their own bank and hadn't the slightest clue what was going on, so they are innocent.

 

They just sat behind a nice big desk and got paid a lot, is all they admitted to, and which is probably the absolute truth.

 

What we have to accept is that the biggest sin of Flowers was not the drugs or the rent-boys, but the fact that he exposed the whole social, political and economic hierarchy as totally fraudulent.

 

It seems certain that the only talent people at the top have is the ability to tell convincing lies and keep political secrets.

 

Flowers has exposed how the system works and therefore the electorate have to be distracted by the theatrics of a minor scandal, so we don't actually realise the truth.

 

The hierarchy serves an entirely different function to that we assume it to be.

or you could put it like this

 

Drug addict ‘seeking help’ after admitting being a banker

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Tom Pride

 

A hard-core drug addict has apologised for his “stupid and wrong” behaviour and said he is seeking professional help after a video was published showing him working as the chairman of a high street bank discussing a deal to buy large amounts of dangerous ‘derivatives’ from another banker.

The video footage showed ketamine and crack cocaine user Paul Flowers secretly wearing a pin-striped suit, counting out £30,000 in cash in bonuses and asking if he could also get hold of a dangerous drug used by hard core bankers known as ‘hedge fund leverages’.

The Mail on Sunday said a friend of Flowers handed over the footage after becoming “disgusted by the hypocrisy” of a man who lived a Jeckyll and Hide existence – posing by night as an average, respectable drug addict but by day working as a hard-core banker buying and selling dangerous high street banking services to his quite often desperate customers, the Mail on Sunday said.

After being confronted with the material, Flowers, 63, admitted to having once chaired the Co-operative Bank but he claimed he no longer had a banking habit after seeking professional assistance to help him kick his addiction to habitual use of dangerous financial instruments.

 

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/drug-addict-seeking-help-after-admitting-being-a-banker/

[Richard]

The best thing about the Co-op bank story is how it destroys the myth that people in top jobs are there on merit, are talented and deserve their rewards.

 

I think that's a huge and unfair generalisation.  I know I have just quoted a section of your post and context is all important but if you would have typed the word "some"after the word that and before the word people then it would have been far better.  There are many in so called top jobs that do a good job on merit and ,  as ever,  it is a few that adversely affect the reputation of a lot more.  Just as in politics.

[Awol]

Mockingbird Franklin,

 

Wouldn't it be easier to link this thread to a Tom Pride RSS feed instead of reposting the entire contents of his blog here every day?

[bickster]

The best thing about the Co-op bank story is how it destroys the myth that people in top jobs are there on merit, are talented and deserve their rewards.

I think that's a huge and unfair generalisation. I know I have just quoted a section of your post and context is all important but if you would have typed the word "some"after the word that and before the word people then it would have been far better. There are many in so called top jobs that do a good job on merit and , as ever, it is a few that adversely affect the reputation of a lot more. Just as in politics.

I very much doubt that's true in the banking sector. We're in this mess because of them and politicians and there's very few that did a good job… moving on to the energy sector… oops

[Kingfisher]

'Bankers' might argue the they did a brilliant job. It depends on what their perspective, motivation and moral outlook is.

[snowychap]

I think that's a huge and unfair generalisation.

I don't but I can understand why that would raise your hackles.

Amusingly, they are both part of what marries Cameron's Tory party with Blair's (and Miliband's) Labour.

Edited November 22, 2013 by snowychap

[blandy]

I very much doubt that's true in the banking sector. We're in this mess because of them and politicians and there's very few that did a good job… moving on to the energy sector… oops

 

Or as the Indie put it

That someone at once so unqualified, so well connected and – for want of a better word – so flawed could rise to head a respected bank, despite so many slips along the way, should be treated as the national scandal it is, a blistering commentary on the recruitment and calibre of our top management. For the rise and rise of Rev Flowers is not, however much it suits certain people and interest groups to make it such, a matter either of party politics or of banking.

However mightily Flowers seems to have benefited from his Labour Party connections, whatever indulgences might have been shown to him as a Methodist minister, and whatever chance led to his having a senior position in British banking thrust upon him, his career is no more than a distillation of the considerations that speed so many to senior positions in this country today. Alas, this applies even now, in the 21st century, when qualifications and merit are what supposedly counts.

How much longer do we have to listen to clipped accents promoting the Rolls-Royce machine that is supposedly our top Civil Service as a model for public administration the world over? Remember the botched franchising of the West Coast mainline? Think, too, of the outsourcing of tagging and Olympic security that was so poorly managed that it cost far more than it should have done and still did not deliver the goods. Think of those ever more expensive aircraft carriers.

How do we still have the brass neck to sell the NHS as a global paradigm, when an elementary exercise in mass computerisation failed; the whole system creaks out of nine-to-five office hours, and there are elderly patients, not just at Mid Staffs, who cannot get even a drink of water? How much trust can our top police command, when Hillsborough records appear to have been tampered with and an investigation into the treatment of a cabinet minister has called into question the probity of senior officers and is still lumbering on after more than a year?

And how can we revere the City of London as the last word in efficiency and probity, when it has allowed itself – among so many other excesses – to be stung by the vanity listings of dubious companies and failed to prevent the rigging of Libor?

One welcome by-product of the rise to prominence of parliamentary committees has been the glimpse their proceedings have afforded of the truly lamentable standards of management in almost every branch of national life, public and private. We have watched leading bankers admit that they have not a banking qualification between them. We have watched well-intentioned BBC executives, past and present, evince barely an inkling of the ethical and financial responsibility that should attend their rather solid salaries. We are currently watching erstwhile luminaries of the press having to defend their conduct at the Central Criminal Court.

In a report out this week, which deserves much more attention than its modest title – “Depending on the Right People” – may attract, James de Waal, an associate of the London think tank Chatham House, casts a profoundly troubling spotlight on relations between top politicians and the military between 2001 and 2010 (the age, of course, of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles; the age, also, of Tony Blair).

De Waal’s study debunks what might be the last of our national illusions: that the top brass always, and necessarily, have the national interest front and centre; or that government ministers and top civil servants are as competent as we might expect them to be. Drawing on, among other things, testimony given to the Iraq inquiry – which report has still not been published – de Waal identifies the lack of any reliable system for policy-making, even when that entails the waging of war.

The advantages of the British way of doing things, de Waal argues, might be flexibility and speed. But it also brings “incoherence, inconsistency and opacity”. Too much, he suggests, depends on personal relationships – or cronyism, as we might call it in other people’s countries. What we need, he insists, is a formal legal framework, more open debate, and records that show “who gave what advice, when and why”. And so, if we want to be a truly modern state, we do.

From now on, anyone tempted to extol the British way of doing things and recommend it as a model for others should first have to chronicle the charmed life of the Rev Paul Flowers and explain how this train wreck could have been avoided.

[KennyPowers]

I'm not going to claim to have lots of experience but I have met a few MP's on several occasions and have met and worked with a few people who have risen to the top of their corporate ladder (at least in the sense they claim whopping great salaries). 

 

The idea that these people are deserving of their salaries/status is to me completely wrong. They tend to have some intelligence but I wouldn't describe them as intelligent in the studied/academic sense. What these people tend to have and what you need to have to get to the top is people skills and connections. To be harsh you need to be good at schmoozing people. You need to have some charisma and whilst you don't have to necessarily be likeable you need to have an aura of authority. 

 

Anti-intellectualism is pervasive throughout society. People don't tend to like cold hard intelligence and very intelligent people often lack social skills. Intelligence may make you rich but it won't get you to the top of the corporate ladder. Schmoozing people can get you to the top in most industries though. 

 

Just another point on this. The higher up the corporate ladder you go the more your days are full of meetings rather than y'know doing actual work. It is mostly just about people skills and appointing people below you who are intelligent and do know what they are doing. Don't believe for a second that the people at the top know what they're doing, don't believe for a second that just because they command a huge salary that they deserve it or that their jobs are even that demanding. Obviously there are a high proportion of people who are very good at their jobs (even if that doesn't justify their whopping salaries) but there are a lot of people who have just blagged their way to the top. 

[KennyPowers]

By the way out of curiosity I watched the BBC programme 'Free Speech' the other day. It's a yoof programme dealing with yoof issues and talked a lot about why young people are so apathetic about voting. 

 

They repeatedly say politicians don't connect them which is why they don't vote. What they are driving at though is that politicians tend to be too educated and too posh. Which is fine but similar to my point above you are just not going to get many very intelligent people with great people skills who want to be politicians (because there are more lucrative and more fulfilling jobs out there). What they seem to be driving at is they want less educated, less intelligent politicians. This is a perverse outcome, MP's are there to legislate, not purely for representation. Yes we could do with more diversity but what we actually need is politicians who can consistently make good decisions following complex arguments (i.e. intelligence and no I don't necessarily mean people should have fancy degrees, I mean we need people with cold, hard, practical intelligence). 

 

Anyway it really depressed me. Balanced intelligent comments largely got ignored whilst there was applause for anyone who went on a rant as long as they had a bit of charisma. The future of politics in this country is bleak. The people ideally suited to lead the country gravitate towards more lucrative and more fulfilling jobs and we are left with politicians who have chosen politics as a career largely out of vanity. I don't know what the answer is. 

[mockingbird_franklin]

Mockingbird Franklin,

 

Wouldn't it be easier to link this thread to a Tom Pride RSS feed instead of reposting the entire contents of his blog here every day?

I've thought about this, answer is no, especially as it seems to irritate you somewhat having these 'selective' piss takes of the rich/Tory incompetents/psychopathic liars posted here

[MakemineVanilla]

Here are a couple of fundamental truths about work which I have never found any evidence to doubt.

 

1) There are two sorts of workers: those who devote themselves to getting the job done and those who are totally concerned with the politics of the workplace - the latter will always rise higher in the organisation than the former.

 

2) No one ever gets promoted by working hard or being good at their job because those who get promoted do not climb the ladder they are pulled up by someone on the next level who likes them, or sees them as useful as a potential ally.

Edited November 23, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[mockingbird_franklin]

Here are a couple of fundamental truths about work which I have never found any evidence to doubt.

 

1) There are two sorts of workers: those who devote themselves to getting the job done and those who are totally concerned with the politics of the workplace - the latter will always rise higher in the organisation than the former.

 

2) No one ever gets promoted by working hard or being good at their job because those who get promoted do not climb the ladder they are pulled up by someone on the next level who likes them, or sees them as useful as a potential ally.

You can add to the fact that many of the people who work hard and get the job done often have little interest in promotion to management and prefer to be hands on, this is often coupled with the reluctance to encourage good quality hard workers to seek promotion, Many a time I've heard comments such as 'you're useless enough to be promoted to management' as a piss take when people mess up or 'if you keep getting it right you'll never get promoted' to competent hard workers, but in humour the truth is often spoken. I have met many people who rather foolishly see promotion as a way of getting away from working hard, as an easy ride, when it should be exchanging one form of working hard and getting the job done for a different one.

Edited November 23, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

How do you change it, though?

 

Promotion via independent panel that weighs up the evidence?

[Awol]

 

Mockingbird Franklin,

 

Wouldn't it be easier to link this thread to a Tom Pride RSS feed instead of reposting the entire contents of his blog here every day?

I've thought about this, answer is no, especially as it seems to irritate you somewhat having these 'selective' piss takes of the rich/Tory incompetents/psychopathic liars posted here

 

No it's not irritating, I'm all for pointing out the numerous failings of this government, it's just that Mr Prides' writing is such juvenile dross (neither insightful or funny) that it really lowers the tone of the thread, imho. If it's actually your blog then please accept my apologies.

[Risso]

Yeah, it's just trying to be a bit "Daily Mash" and mostly failing.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Mockingbird Franklin,

 

Wouldn't it be easier to link this thread to a Tom Pride RSS feed instead of reposting the entire contents of his blog here every day?

I've thought about this, answer is no, especially as it seems to irritate you somewhat having these 'selective' piss takes of the rich/Tory incompetents/psychopathic liars posted here

 

No it's not irritating, I'm all for pointing out the numerous failings of this government, it's just that Mr Prides' writing is such juvenile dross (neither insightful or funny) that it really lowers the tone of the thread, imho. If it's actually your blog then please accept my apologies.

 

No apologies necessary to me, If your intuition makes you think it is my blog them it needs retuning, I guess humour is like most artistic pursuits open to taste of the recipient, One mans pleasure is another pain, maybe i like the 'juvenile dross' way handling of a government that is full of juvenile dross and pushes through CSE level thinking to form and push through policy, I guess it's similar how I often deal with crude rude people in a similar way

Edited November 23, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[MakemineVanilla]

How do you change it, though?

 

Promotion via independent panel that weighs up the evidence?

 

I am not sure it needs to change, only the perception of the function of the hierarchy, which is a measure of alignment to the bureaucratic politics not actual competence.

 

Flowers is a fine example of this; he knew nothing about banking but matched the brand-image of the bank, with his Methodism and Labour affiliations, he was forced to resign not because he didn't know what the bank's assets were but because he was found not to represent the right image of the bank.

 

I suppose we have to ask whether moral turpitude is a sacking offence in the banking industry as a whole - it seems highly unlikely.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Yeah, it's just trying to be a bit "Daily Mash" and mostly failing.

Just like the current government are trying to be pretend to be a bit 'competent and compassionate' and completely failing to convince anyone who looks further than the Daily Mail to supply them with an opinion

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 I'm all for pointing out the numerous failings of this government,

 

 

Good, so lets point out one of intelligent lifes, evolution, and the governments biggest failings, step forward Mr George Smith (what is it with these Tory politicians and their unwillingness to use their real names). Some thing to hide?

 

Iain Duncan Smith 'targeting seriously ill claimants' in benefits overhaul

Nearly 550,000 people currently considered too sick to work face losing financial support if radical changes go ahead

• Daniel Boffey, policy editor
• The Observer, Saturday 23 November 2013 20.30 GMT

Iain Duncan Smith is said to be unhappy with the length of time seriously ill people are claiming benefit under the WRAG system. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

The fate of nearly 550,000 benefit claimants currently deemed unfit for work due to serious illnesses such as cancer is in the balance as it emerged that Iain Duncan Smith is planning a radical change to the welfare system.

The work and pensions secretary is pushing to scrap a part of the benefits system that helps sufferers of recent illnesses get back into employment. These individuals are covered by the term "work-related activity group" (WRAG) and are regarded as being capable of work in the future. They are paid benefits if they carry out training or practice interviews.

However, the Observer understands that Duncan Smith wants to disband the group, currently made up of 546,770 people. Such a move would require an overhaul of the whole benefits system, say experts.

The cabinet minister is said to be concerned that only half of claimants in WRAG are coming off benefit within three years, and that hundreds of millions of pounds are being tied up in administration of the benefit, including the work capability assessments and appeals process.

Anne Begg MP, the Labour chairwoman of the cross-party work and pensions select committee, said her fear was that the vulnerable people in that group would be forced to join the dole queue and be at the mercy of the sanction system, under which claimants lose benefits if they do not attend enough interviews or make efforts to find a job.

She said: "My concern is that, if he gets rid of the WRAG group and says all these people are fit to work, that will turn them into job support allowance claimants. Then we have all these people who they are wasting money on trying to get into work, who are realistically never going to get into work and whose condition will be made worse.

"I have two constituents who are psychiatric nurses who have just been telling me about the damage done to people who are ill and incapable and forced to attend job centres."

Begg said she would raise the issue with the minister for disabled people, Mike Penning, when he is due to come before the committee on 11 December.

Stephen Timms, a former Labour welfare reform minister and now shadow minister for employment, said scrapping the WRAG would require "a radical change" to the system on top of a whole series of reforms being pursued by the government.

A Whitehall source said Duncan Smith was championing the major change ahead of the impending publication of the national disability employment strategy. He added that the change was being opposed by the new employment minister, Esther McVey, although a source close to the minister insisted that "any talk of a rift between the minister and the secretary of state is complete nonsense".

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "We're continually looking to improve the system and all sorts of ideas are considered, some of which are acted upon and some of which are not. Ministers are working together closely and we will do everything we can to support this group of people to move off benefits and into work."

A source close to Duncan Smith said any changes to the WRAG could only be understood within the context of the whole system. The source said the department was taking independent advice on reforms of the support allowance paid to the unemployed.

Duncan Smith is already under fire over the government's new universal credit welfare system, through which benefits will be paid to those in and out of work in one payment. Last September the £2.4bn project was described as being poorly managed and riddled with major IT problems by the government's official auditors. The National Audit Office also said that its cost could escalate by hundreds of millions of pounds.

In response, the government said the criticisms had not taken into account recent changes to the management of the reforms.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/23/iain-duncan-smith-wrag-benefit-cuts

 

Dear me, you'd think he'd wait until he actually managed to get one of his many previous failing ideas on track before issuing forth his next hair brained attempt to punish the sick for their fecklessness

Edited November 23, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin