|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:00:06 GMT 1
Two wrongs most definately do not make it right. You also forget that in the above case the pair of them had a brain and ideas, wether we think they were right or wrong. The devastating characteristic now is that one of them is an unelected svengali and the other ones narcisistic and shallow.I trust you are being ironic with your last sentence when referring to Campbell & Blair? I note that you don't try to deny one of them is an unelected svengali and the other ones narcisistic and shallow about the current twosome.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jul 1, 2020 13:02:34 GMT 1
I trust you are being ironic with your last sentence when referring to Campbell & Blair? I note that you don't try to deny one of them is an unelected svengali and the other ones narcisistic and shallow about the current twosome. Obviously goes with the territory, but just goes to show that it is hardly some "new" revelation about the offices of power
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:05:25 GMT 1
Understand your first point but not the second.👍 What I get from looking to some of the complaints made towards PHE is that the private sector were willing and able to do more (and perhaps quicker) but were hindered from doing so by PHE. Whether it was the sheer scale of it all and PHE weren't able to cope because they had neither the staff or the resources, whether it was the structure of the organisation, whether it was some reluctance in PHE to work together with the private sector...who knows. But it ought to be looked at and reforms made if needed. The problem is that the commercial testers are doing the tests but not sharing the results with local governments, meaning they cant do anything to prevent spread in light of positive results Confirmed by a parliamentary question I'm with you, so perhaps we can say that it is not an equal partnership at times. But still, I do not think this shows or proves that PHE is beyond reproach when it comes to possible reform. From what's reported the UK's leading scientific institutions (including Universities) have been reaching out to PHE to collaborate but have been kept at arms length and ignored. Whether a request for blood samples to help develop antibody tests or the offer of staff and equipment. The impression is that PHE wanted to keep things in-house. Perhaps that isn't the case but it doesn't hurt for that to be looked into. And no one is saying that the private sector is more efficient. But it really does go without saying, or rather it should, that when it comes to such a pandemic and when timing is crucial you want to see all hand to the pump and everyone who is a position to contribute is able to do so. That's just common sense. That is what we see here in Germany with the public and private sectors all willing and able to contribute to fighting the pandemic. You want both to be in a position to be able to contribute. Find it bizarre to be honest how some are viewing this. That there couldn't possibly be an issue with PHE, that things shouldn't be changed, that its inconceivable that it could be replaced with something that may prove better suited, that it doesn't need to be reformed and any issues (when looking to its management of COVID-19) must lie elsewhere outside of PHE.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:14:44 GMT 1
The problem is that the commercial testers are doing the tests but not sharing the results with local governments, meaning they cant do anything to prevent spread in light of positive results Confirmed by a parliamentary question I'm with you, so perhaps we can say that it is not an equal partnership at times. But still, I do not think this shows or proves that PHE is beyond reproach when it comes to possible reform. From what's reported the UK's leading scientific institutions (including Universities) have been reaching out to PHE to collaborate but have been kept at arms length and ignored. Whether a request for blood samples to help develop antibody tests or the offer of staff and equipment. The impression is that PHE wanted to keep things in-house. Perhaps that isn't the case but it doesn't hurt for that to be looked into. And no one is saying that the private sector is more efficient. But it really does go without saying, or rather it should, that when it comes to such a pandemic and when timing is crucial you want to see all hand to the pump and everyone who is a position to contribute is able to do so. That's just common sense. That is what we see here in Germany with the public and private sectors all willing and able to contribute to fighting the pandemic. You want both to be in a position to be able to contribute. Find it bizarre to be honest how some are viewing this. That there couldn't possibly be an issue with PHE, that things shouldn't be changed, that its inconceivable that it could be replaced with something that may prove better suited, that it doesn't need to be reformed and any issues (when looking to its management of COVID-19) must lie elsewhere outside of PHE. Highly likely that PHE has some failings, they have been subject to all those years of Tory rule that made everything else unready for dealing with this. link: How a decade of privatisation and cuts exposed England to coronavirus 40% cut to PHE's operational budget in real terms since 2013 for a start!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:23:25 GMT 1
I'm with you, so perhaps we can say that it is not an equal partnership at times. But still, I do not think this shows or proves that PHE is beyond reproach when it comes to possible reform. From what's reported the UK's leading scientific institutions (including Universities) have been reaching out to PHE to collaborate but have been kept at arms length and ignored. Whether a request for blood samples to help develop antibody tests or the offer of staff and equipment. The impression is that PHE wanted to keep things in-house. Perhaps that isn't the case but it doesn't hurt for that to be looked into. And no one is saying that the private sector is more efficient. But it really does go without saying, or rather it should, that when it comes to such a pandemic and when timing is crucial you want to see all hand to the pump and everyone who is a position to contribute is able to do so. That's just common sense. That is what we see here in Germany with the public and private sectors all willing and able to contribute to fighting the pandemic. You want both to be in a position to be able to contribute. Find it bizarre to be honest how some are viewing this. That there couldn't possibly be an issue with PHE, that things shouldn't be changed, that its inconceivable that it could be replaced with something that may prove better suited, that it doesn't need to be reformed and any issues (when looking to its management of COVID-19) must lie elsewhere outside of PHE. Highly likely that PHE has some failings. Right. So if it is considered too slow and cumbersome, if it is too centralized, if it is to insular, if some consider there are better ways to manage and structure such a body then its hardly surprising that some will think reform the best course of action.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 1, 2020 13:27:09 GMT 1
Very nicely done. How typical that the cry for reform is always directed at the public sector. The knee jerk reaction of some (and of some on here) is all too predictable. There's always this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Have worked in both, the private sector can just be as inefficient as the public sector. How efficient a workplace is depends on ethos, management and leadership. It can be good, or bad in both sectors. Indeed. And while the private sector can be more efficient, it doesn't mean they'll put the interests of the public first. What is the point in doing the testing if the results aren't shared? Basically means they are taking the government's money without delivering what is needed. Although how on earth did the government not stipulate it in the contracts?!?!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:28:18 GMT 1
Highly likely that PHE has some failings. Right. So if it is considered too slow and cumbersome, if it is too centralized, if it is to insular, if some consider there are better ways to manage and structure such a body then its hardly surprising that some will think reform the best course of action. The NHS too?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 1, 2020 13:31:23 GMT 1
Highly likely that PHE has some failings. Right. So if it is considered too slow and cumbersome, if it is too centralized, if it is to insular, if some consider there are better ways to manage and structure such a body then its hardly surprising that some will think reform the best course of action. Indeed. But again, I say PHE was set up when Public Health was removed from the NHS against the advice of the majority of professional medical organisations, at a significant cost, with the promise from Lansley that doing so would 'reduce bureaucracy'
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:32:55 GMT 1
Right. So if it is considered too slow and cumbersome, if it is too centralized, if it is to insular, if some consider there are better ways to manage and structure such a body then its hardly surprising that some will think reform the best course of action. The NHS too? Not sure I get the question in relation to what we are discussing but why would you not reform any public body if you felt that it would bring about improvements to it? Isn't that something to strive for at all times?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:36:25 GMT 1
Right. So if it is considered too slow and cumbersome, if it is too centralized, if it is to insular, if some consider there are better ways to manage and structure such a body then its hardly surprising that some will think reform the best course of action. Indeed. But again, I say PHE was set up when Public Health was removed from the NHS against the advice of the majority of professional medical organisations, at a significant cost, with the promise from Lansley that doing so would 'reduce bureaucracy' So you think that was the start of where things went wrong. At its creation? In that, whatever was promised from its formation was perhaps not achievable (and might never will be). Maybe they ought to start speaking to those organisations again.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 1, 2020 13:45:20 GMT 1
Very nicely done. How typical that the cry for reform is always directed at the public sector. The knee jerk reaction of some (and of some on here) is all too predictable. There's always this idea that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Have worked in both, the private sector can just be as inefficient as the public sector. How efficient a workplace is depends on ethos, management and leadership. It can be good, or bad in both sectors. Couldn't agree more. I'm not saying the public sector doesn't need to be as carefully managed as any other organisation. However, I've worked in the private sector for 35 years and have seen great businesses, terribly run businesses and everything in between. Some might say that a badly run business will go bust, which is its own ruthless version of 'reform'. There's truth in that, but only partially. A lot of poorly managed businesses take a long time to go bust and a lot more never go bust at all. They just carry on with their bad practices - exploiting their workforce, failing to develop the potential of their staff, playing games with creditors, damaging the environment, resisting change, under-investing etc etc. I know it isn't easy to run a business but doing it badly certainly doesn't make it any easier. Trouble is, the private sector isn't good at reforming itself collectively ….. it might require the public sector to help it along …..
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 1, 2020 13:55:54 GMT 1
Not sure I get the question in relation to what we are discussing but why would you not reform any public body if you felt that it would bring about improvements to it? Isn't that something to strive for at all times? The NHS won't be singled out like PHE because it would be a vote loser. But both have been diminished by all those years of Tory rule.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 14:09:43 GMT 1
Not sure I get the question in relation to what we are discussing but why would you not reform any public body if you felt that it would bring about improvements to it? Isn't that something to strive for at all times? The NHS won't be singled out like PHE because it would be a vote loser. But both have been diminished by all those years of Tory rule. You do wonder just how much of an impact the first point you make has on the second. Neither the Tories or Labour (and lets not forget, Labour's record with the NHS isn't great either) seem willing to discuss an overhaul of the NHS for fear of losing votes. All that seems to matter is the amount of money each party is willing to throw at it.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 1, 2020 14:13:13 GMT 1
Indeed. But again, I say PHE was set up when Public Health was removed from the NHS against the advice of the majority of professional medical organisations, at a significant cost, with the promise from Lansley that doing so would 'reduce bureaucracy' So you think that was the start of where things went wrong. At its creation? In that, whatever was promised from its formation was perhaps not achievable (and might never will be). Maybe they ought to start speaking to those organisations again. Millions / Billions was spent on a re-organisation against advice in order to reduce bureaucracy, and it's actually added bureaucracy and it has not helped with the pandemic response. And the possible fall out could now be another re-organisation. Will the professionals be listened to this time? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 1, 2020 14:40:02 GMT 1
As often happens this thread has gone off in a different direction to that intended.
My original post was an attempt to illustrate that Cummings had pointed to a flaw in British governance by, I guess inadvertently, showing that the people at the head of the Civil Service are from the very same limited pool of education and experience as those at the top of government. That is, public school, Oxbridge, mainly white and mainly male. Hardly representative of the country as a whole.
As social mobility is in decline I doubt whether this will change.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2020 14:52:33 GMT 1
So you think that was the start of where things went wrong. At its creation? In that, whatever was promised from its formation was perhaps not achievable (and might never will be). Maybe they ought to start speaking to those organisations again. Millions / Billions was spent on a re-organisation against advice in order to reduce bureaucracy, and it's actually added bureaucracy and it has not helped with the pandemic response. And the possible fall out could now be another re-organisation. Will the professionals be listened to this time? Probably not. Sure. But then a pandemic such as COVID-19 is unprecedented in many parts of the world, including the UK. If only because of that then things will be looked at, lessons learnt, changes made. I don't think it will come as a major surprise that there will reforms made to such bodies as PHE. Or the introduction of a new body altogether. COVID-19 could well have brought that on come what may, whatever structure we might have had in place. As its not something we have encountered before. And I don't think this has to be viewed as a bad thing if it helps the UK to be better prepare for future events.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 1, 2020 15:26:10 GMT 1
As often happens this thread has gone off in a different direction to that intended. My original post was an attempt to illustrate that Cummings had pointed to a flaw in British governance by, I guess inadvertently, showing that the people at the head of the Civil Service are from the very same limited pool of education and experience as those at the top of government. That is, public school, Oxbridge, mainly white and mainly male. Hardly representative of the country as a whole. As social mobility is in decline I doubt whether this will change. Well, you did title the thread " dominic Cummings and the Civil Service", which puts "In the blue corner: Dominic Cummings, In the red corner: The Civil Service" in my and apparently other's minds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 16:42:22 GMT 1
As often happens this thread has gone off in a different direction to that intended. My original post was an attempt to illustrate that Cummings had pointed to a flaw in British governance by, I guess inadvertently, showing that the people at the head of the Civil Service are from the very same limited pool of education and experience as those at the top of government. That is, public school, Oxbridge, mainly white and mainly male. Hardly representative of the country as a whole. As social mobility is in decline I doubt whether this will change. And it's highly relevant considering the powers structures that exist and how this ties in with the grievances of BLM. Of course, the 'left' have been trying to change this status quo for years, including Corbyn, but the populist 'right' have won out on the rhetoric of sticking it to the 'elite'. Meanwhile, the 'centrists' wring their hands and decide that the 'left' is a whatever the press tell them it is (usually after their money in taxes) and enable the current government. And here we are, one group of privileged Oxbridge educated people, replace another group of privileged Oxbridge people. That's shown 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jul 1, 2020 16:49:11 GMT 1
As often happens this thread has gone off in a different direction to that intended. My original post was an attempt to illustrate that Cummings had pointed to a flaw in British governance by, I guess inadvertently, showing that the people at the head of the Civil Service are from the very same limited pool of education and experience as those at the top of government. That is, public school, Oxbridge, mainly white and mainly male. Hardly representative of the country as a whole. As social mobility is in decline I doubt whether this will change. And it's highly relevant considering the powers structures that exist and how this ties in with the grievances of BLM. Of course, the 'left' have been trying to change this status quo for years, including Corbyn, but the populist 'right' have won out on the rhetoric of sticking it to the 'elite'. Meanwhile, the 'centrists' wring their hands and decide that the 'left' is a whatever the press tell them it is (usually after their money in taxes) and enable the current government. And here we are, one group of privileged Oxbridge educated people, replace another group of privileged Oxbridge people. That's shown 'em. I give you Sir Kier Starmer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 17:03:11 GMT 1
And it's highly relevant considering the powers structures that exist and how this ties in with the grievances of BLM. Of course, the 'left' have been trying to change this status quo for years, including Corbyn, but the populist 'right' have won out on the rhetoric of sticking it to the 'elite'. Meanwhile, the 'centrists' wring their hands and decide that the 'left' is a whatever the press tell them it is (usually after their money in taxes) and enable the current government. And here we are, one group of privileged Oxbridge educated people, replace another group of privileged Oxbridge people. That's shown 'em. I give you Sir Kier Starmer I don't disagree Minor, but what I will say is that Starmer's mum was a nurse and his dad a toolmaker. So, it points to a social mobility that ST was talking about. Of course, if he was as socialist as he likes make out, he would have turned down his title....
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jul 1, 2020 17:08:12 GMT 1
I give you Sir Kier Starmer I don't disagree Minor, but what I will say is that Starmer's mum was a nurse and his dad a toolmaker. So, it points to a social mobility that ST was talking about. Of course, if he was as socialist as he likes make out, he would have turned down his title.... My thoughts exactly
|
|