The Labour Government

[69FACUPfinal]

No I don't misunderstand at all. I think you may need to read my post again. You will see that I have given examples of the " guidance" given by the ministers I have mentioned, I understand that the policy detail will written by the civil servants. The point is that ' guidance" given by said ministers and written into policy does not survive contact with reality as per the examples in my post . The reason for that is these ministers do not have real world experience before entering parliament. Alos I do not share your confidence in the " experts" in Whitehall. They share the same traits.

I worked in a fairly senior role in Central government and quite categorically say that the policy is decided by civil servants. Usually most of them newly qualified graduates full of ideology and little world experience. The senior seniors ( Grade 3, above, Perm Secs) are advised on policy by these kids and then go and sell it to the incumbent Government Minister. Government of the day may give them a steer as to the direction they want to take, but the real decisions are not ministerial.

I will say no more about the direction the Government are being led in by the policy makers....

 

[Hertzblue]

I worked in a fairly senior role in Central government and quite categorically say that the policy is decided by civil servants. Usually most of them newly qualified graduates full of ideology and little world experience. The senior seniors ( Grade 3, above, Perm Secs) are advised on policy by these kids and then go and sell it to the incumbent Government Minister. Government of the day may give them a steer as to the direction they want to take, but the real decisions are not ministerial.

I will say no more about the direction the Government are being led in by the policy makers....

Exactly that , the blind leading the blind .

 

[69FACUPfinal]

Exactly that , the blind leading the blind .

To clarify, I was a delivery team leader - stayed well away from policy!

 

[bluenova]

Learnt absolutely nothing from the democrats, whatsoever. Keep shitting on the people who vote for you and they’ll vote for someone else. Farage will be rubbing his hands together with her latest piece of fuckwittery.

If you look at where Farage has been taking votes from Labour, he's hardly going to be rubbing his hands together.

Reform benefit from the NHS being run down, housing being unavailable, jobs scarce, and high levels of unemployment and sickness. They benefit from people being disillusioned with life, who see politicians as "all the same".

A genuine attempt to improve the NHS, build social housing, tackle youth unemployment, and help sick people get back into work, is the last thing they want.

 

[Don Karleone]

Dress it up however you like, it's more austerity on people who can't afford it. Fucking Tory cunts

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

If you look at where Farage has been taking votes from Labour, he's hardly going to be rubbing his hands together.

Reform benefit from the NHS being run down, housing being unavailable, jobs scarce, and high levels of unemployment and sickness. They benefit from people being disillusioned with life, who see politicians as "all the same".

A genuine attempt to improve the NHS, build social housing, tackle youth unemployment, and help sick people get back into work, is the last thing they want.

I hope I’m wrong and that you’re right but I’m not convinced anybody will feel better off by 2029.

As for Reeves, she’s looking at billions in spending cuts this morning and we all know where they’ll be focussed. The sick, disabled and another baseless assault on the youngsters in the country.

Sadly she’s from the ‘Oxford school of economics’ which has blighted this country for decades. They focus on ‘debt’ whilst seemingly having no idea what it is and why it’s not the huge issue they all pretend it is.

Hospitals are still falling down, doctors and nurse training are over subscribed but closed, whilst we’re still bring medical staff from all over the globe.

 

[bluenova]

Dress it up however you like, it's more austerity on people who can't afford it. Fucking Tory cunts

If that was aimed at my post, I'd like to ask a question.

There are areas of the UK where around 20% of the population are on health related benefits. There are also areas where that figure is around 4%. That's clearly not because people in certain areas were born ill and should be written off for life.

How would you address it, without aiming for less people who are sick and unable to work?

 

[bluenova]

I hope I’m wrong and that you’re right but I’m not convinced anybody will feel better off by 2029.

As for Reeves, she’s looking at billions in spending cuts this morning and we all know where they’ll be focussed. The sick, disabled and another baseless assault on the youngsters in the country.

Sadly she’s from the ‘Oxford school of economics’ which has blighted this country for decades. They focus on ‘debt’ whilst seemingly having no idea what it is and why it’s not the huge issue they all pretend it is.

Hospitals are still falling down, doctors and nurse training are over subscribed but closed, whilst we’re still bring medical staff from all over the globe.

I guess that's what Labour will be judged on in 4 years time.

I'm just not convinced by a "baseless assault on the youngsters". The solution can't be to have an ever increasing number of people classed as too sick to work. A decent society supports those who can't work - but it's also decent to help those who want to work, get jobs, and to help those who are struggling to be in a position that they can have a better life. The fact that the youngest are being targeted is important for them, and for society as a whole. It can't be right that young people are becoming unable to work at a much faster rate than older people.

 

[BrianW]

Great Soldier = Great War leader, No background in business / commerce = terrible Chancellor

Churchill was never a senior officer. Great soldiers are people like U.S. Grant, B.L. Montgomery and the 1st Duke of Marlborough. That is to say, successful commanding generals.

Churchill's military experience gave him certain delusions of grandeur. For example, he was the 'brains' behind the Gallipoli campaign that turned out to be a complete, total, fucking disaster. He also sought to interfere in military matters in WW2, almost as much as Adolf did, but fortunately with less effect.

Expertise in politicians can be dangerous if they fail to understand their limitations. They are there primarily to represent us not to be experts in the field.

Who was the last Chancellor of the Exchequer with a genuine understanding of economic theory? George Osborne was notoriously a towel-folder.

Who was the last Secretary of State for Education who had genuine educational experience, above going to school? I honestly cannot think of one.

Who was the last Health Secretary with medical experience? I can only think of Dr David Owen and most of you are too young to remember him in his pomp. (Right-wing Labour, later SDP.)

Who was the last Transport Secretary with experience in managing public transport at a senior level? Eric Geddes, I believe, over 100 years ago. (A man whose answer to depression was to make swinging cuts in public expenditure, only to find this deepened the depression. Nota bene.)

Business experience? What does that mean exactly? And how does, say, managing a wire works qualify one in macroeconomics, which is what one needs to manage a state? (A state is not, and should not be, a business, except insofar as it runs nationalised industries that are not primarily social enterprises.)

 

[inbetween]

I hope I’m wrong and that you’re right but I’m not convinced anybody will feel better off by 2029.

As for Reeves, she’s looking at billions in spending cuts this morning and we all know where they’ll be focussed. The sick, disabled and another baseless assault on the youngsters in the country.

Sadly she’s from the ‘Oxford school of economics’ which has blighted this country for decades. They focus on ‘debt’ whilst seemingly having no idea what it is and why it’s not the huge issue they all pretend it is.

Hospitals are still falling down, doctors and nurse training are over subscribed but closed, whilst we’re still bring medical staff from all over the globe.

Why is debt not a huge issue? We currently pay £105bn a year towards debt interest repayments. That is money you are taxed which goes to absolutely nothing except servicing debt. The UK fiscal deficit currently assures that the debt will keep rising unless we either slow spending or start growing, Labour are seemingly trying both.

To put recent Ukraine and war in Europe into context, we spend nearly three times more on debt interest than we do on our own defence.

There is always the argument to spend to grow but the economics are not that simple because growth isn't guaranteed by spending alone. We are today growing faster than Norway or Finland for example who are high spend economies.

If we want more spending then raising more debt is the wrong way to do it. The right way to do it is to impose a high tax / high spending economy but nobody will vote for higher taxes on everyone. Or we could follow our recent monetary policies and just print the money and give it to the banks to lend instead....

 

[Don Karleone]

If that was aimed at my post, I'd like to ask a question.

There are areas of the UK where around 20% of the population are on health related benefits. There are also areas where that figure is around 4%. That's clearly not because people in certain areas were born ill and should be written off for life.

How would you address it, without aiming for less people who are sick and unable to work?

You agree with pretty much everything this government does. It isn't worth it.

 

[bluenova]

You agree with pretty much everything this government does. It isn't worth it.

That's all you can come up with?

I'm not going to come back at you with ten more replies, or anything, I'm just genuinely curious.

As far as I'm concerned, if you look beyond the headlines, even the likes of Liz Kendall are saying things that anyone on the left should agree with. I find those stats shocking, and I assume you do as well.

 

[Don Karleone]

That's all you can come up with?

I'm not going to come back at you with ten more replies, or anything, I'm just genuinely curious.

As far as I'm concerned, if you look beyond the headlines, even the likes of Liz Kendall are saying things that anyone on the left should agree with. I find those stats shocking, and I assume you do as well.

Yeah, it is. You're happy with the way things are going, and I'm happy for you. The country has been here before, it's the worst off taking the brunt of the shit yet again. Although this time, it's the red team cheering it on. That must be the change that Starmer was on about.

 

[mackenzie]

There's absolutely no doubt that the Welfare Bill, in relation to health conditions, is going through the roof. And needs to be addressed.
Do I think there are some "malingerers?" Yes, because some people will always jump on a bandwagon in pursuit of profit.

However, there are many factors that play into those who are genuinely ill.
Lack of public services, lack of real help at first contact (particularly mental health), lack of suitable housing, family breakdowns, isolation, knife crime and the fear of it (especially amongst kids), social media influence, breakdown in a sense of "community", NHS waiting lists,(or even getting a GP appointment on the same day as a matter of course, like you could years ago), etc etc etc.

Oh, and takeaways/fast food and absolute shit food/eating habits.

There's many more factors that could be listed.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Yeah, it is. You're happy with the way things are going, and I'm happy for you. The country has been here before, it's the worst off taking the brunt of the shit yet again. Although this time, it's the red team cheering it on. That must be the change that Starmer was on about.

Have to agree with this. Inequality drives ill health. Policies to tackle that are very desirable but you don’t punish the people
Impacted by inequality until you’ve sorted out the drivers first. It’s just cruel to do so

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I worked in a fairly senior role in Central government and quite categorically say that the policy is decided by civil servants. Usually most of them newly qualified graduates full of ideology and little world experience. The senior seniors ( Grade 3, above, Perm Secs) are advised on policy by these kids and then go and sell it to the incumbent Government Minister. Government of the day may give them a steer as to the direction they want to take, but the real decisions are not ministerial.

I will say no more about the direction the Government are being led in by the policy makers....

Until recently I had a senior role in the civil service and I’d say the opposite. Lots of incoming minsters have priorities they have been lobbied to pursue and this is where the focus of departments are, regardless of the merits of what is proposed. That was my experience, at least. The one area I’d carve out of that is HMT. The civil service rule the roost there for sure

 

[69FACUPfinal]

Until recently I had a senior role in the civil service and I’d say the opposite. Lots of incoming minsters have priorities they have been lobbied to pursue and this is where the focus of departments are, regardless of the merits of what is proposed. That was my experience, at least. The one area I’d carve out of that is HMT. The civil service rule the roost there for sure

Two differing experiences. I took early leave a decade ago. However still remain in contact with former colleagues still in post who tell me not much changed from what I witnessed.

 

[Hertzblue]

Churchill was never a senior officer. Great soldiers are people like U.S. Grant, B.L. Montgomery and the 1st Duke of Marlborough. That is to say, successful commanding generals.

Churchill's military experience gave him certain delusions of grandeur. For example, he was the 'brains' behind the Gallipoli campaign that turned out to be a complete, total, fucking disaster. He also sought to interfere in military matters in WW2, almost as much as Adolf did, but fortunately with less effect.

Expertise in politicians can be dangerous if they fail to understand their limitations. They are there primarily to represent us not to be experts in the field.

Who was the last Chancellor of the Exchequer with a genuine understanding of economic theory? George Osborne was notoriously a towel-folder.

Who was the last Secretary of State for Education who had genuine educational experience, above going to school? I honestly cannot think of one.

Who was the last Health Secretary with medical experience? I can only think of Dr David Owen and most of you are too young to remember him in his pomp. (Right-wing Labour, later SDP.)

Who was the last Transport Secretary with experience in managing public transport at a senior level? Eric Geddes, I believe, over 100 years ago. (A man whose answer to depression was to make swinging cuts in public expenditure, only to find this deepened the depression. Nota bene.)

Business experience? What does that mean exactly? And how does, say, managing a wire works qualify one in macroeconomics, which is what one needs to manage a state? (A state is not, and should not be, a business, except insofar as it runs nationalised industries that are not primarily social enterprises.)

I would disagree that you have to have reached the very highest ranks of the army to be considered a great soldier.He served with distinction his rank is not material.Of course he made mistakes during the course of the war - which leader did not ?
I take your point in respect to expertise but I would double down on my point , if our Civil service, NHS, infrastructure, public finances ,welfare state , social cohesion etc were in good order and fit for purpose then I would accept your point that we have muddled along without expertise in our offices of state- but they are not in good order and not fit for purpose. Maybe its about time we made sure we had some expertise so our ministers are not in thrall to the experts in the civil service.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Haters are gonna hate.

Nothing changes.

 

[blueinsa]

Credit to the Justice minister who has made it very clear that the sentencing committee that is independent and who has announced they want a PSR policy for all minorities it appears that wouldnt apply to white males above the age of 25 is not government policy and she herself entirely disagrees with it.