Tim's Time's Up

[asitis]

As I said earlier, if stats / facts are to be made public i.e. told to the house or as a result of FOI, then the department / persons responsible for their collation, should put their name to them. Irrespective of sanctions further down the line it would be a start towards openness and accountability as an ethos.

[Hoops]

15 minutes ago, asitis said:

As I said earlier, if stats / facts are to be made public i.e. told to the house or as a result of FOI, then the department / persons responsible for their collation, should put their name to them. Irrespective of sanctions further down the line it would be a start towards openness and accountability as an ethos.

Essentially, this was the government spreading disinformation, regardless of whether the person who made the bullshit public did so in good faith.

I thought disinformation was a BAD thing, which was why dissenting voices need to be "deplatformed".

Angles of perspective, and all that.

[joebean]

Another thing that needs to be addressed in the Civil Service is the lack of respect for those with technical and operational experience and expertise. Often, this has been devalued in favour of more general, administrative experience and the belief that a qualification in accounting is a guarantee of suitability. As I was once told, an accountant is someone who understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Recent experience appears to demonstrate this. Without technical and operational experience of the area you are managing it is much more difficult to make reasoned decisions and check the accuracy of what you are being told. A CEO needs to be competent in his/her area of operation. Many are not. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by joebean
typos

[Hoops]

5 minutes ago, joebean said:

Another thing that needs to be addressed in the Civil Service is the lack of respect for those with technical and operational experience and expertise. Often, this has been devalued in favour of more general, administrative and experience and the belief that a qualification in accounting is a guarantee of suitability. As I was once told, an accountant is someone who understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Recent experience appears to demonstrate this. Without technical and operational experience of the area you are managing it is much more difficult to make reasoned decisions and check the accuracy of what you are being told. A CEO needs to be competent in his/her area of operation. Many are not. 

And what is a minister for? They won't have expertise in the field they oversee. Maybe we should actually be voting for the CEO of the department, rather then their spokesperson? Doesn't say a lot for our democracy really, does it?

[Dirty Buggane]

As stated in a lot of posts above it is the accountability, sorry lack of it. You fuck up ,ahh so what. Even worse you do it on purpose to further your own or a mate's ambition. Should be clear cut you mislead by accident or purpose, you are out on your ass. No hand shake, no pension. It would be the cattle prod to make sure your balances and checks are in order. Every event should have consequences, a hand shake or a slap.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Dirty Buggane

[HiVibes]

8 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 You're absolutely correct in saying you have more expertise than me in public transport (probably more than anyone in the entire public sector here).

So in terms of running these services, I defer absolutely to your mastery of the subject 

So as a taxi driver who would know something about public transport you concede that an experienced more qualified person knows best. But when it comes to climate science you know it all because you watched a few YouTube videos.

[Will Halsall]

7 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

but still think it's unreasonable to expect a minister to double or triple check everything his CEO tells him as a fact, especially knowing the minister will be answering a parliamentary question. Imagine you were CEO and your minister was checking up on you with other more junior staff? It would be untenable, and surely there must be a chain of command. Like I said, if he was told lies (or even 'selective' information) there needs to be a proper remedy for that, but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

Morning Stu,

Indeed I agree, if the CS have lied or been selective in the information requested then there absolutely should be a remedy, but this has been going on probably since 979, and over a millennium later there still isn't a remedy for these failures!

I am not (and I suspect this applies to most posters on MF) suggesting that every Tynwald question should be checked and double checked, but with specific reference to Bus Vannin which has an unacceptable history of misinformation, the answers from Longworth et al should be treated with a degree of caution. Even more so as this was Tim Crookall's second spell overseeing BV!

Crookall has nearly 20yrs experience as an elected member for Peel. Importantly, he specifically requested the ministerial post of DoI, and stated in his manifesto that that department needed a shake-up, indicating that the public were being misinformed. You can't possibly deny that he should have taken these obvious lies at face value before presenting them to Tynwald and the public, and he should have clarified the facts first? It was so obvious to everyone that the answer was total horseshit, it makes a complete mockery of our whole political process - as an elected member you should be embarrassed about the perception this gives the public!

To reiterate, in his manifesto he stated that the DoI needed shaking up, he then requested to be minister of the DoI, then he ignores everything he said about the department 10 months ago (when seeking election), and let's Longworth tickle his tummy while feeding him with  'duff gen'!

To make things even more ridiculous, he then asks to run the DfE and resigns within 2 months - the guy is a fuckin disgrace!!!!! 

 

 

[Non-Believer]

14 minutes ago, Will Halsall said:

Morning Stu,

Indeed I agree, if the CS have lied or been selective in the information requested then there absolutely should be a remedy, but this has been going on probably since 979, and over a millennium later there still isn't a remedy for these failures!

I am not (and I suspect this applies to most posters on MF) suggesting that every Tynwald question should be checked and double checked, but with specific reference to Bus Vannin which has an unacceptable history of misinformation, the answers from Longworth et al should be treated with a degree of caution. Even more so as this was Tim Crookall's second spell overseeing BV!

Crookall has nearly 20yrs experience as an elected member for Peel. Importantly, he specifically requested the ministerial post of DoI, and stated in his manifesto that that department needed a shake-up, indicating that the public were being misinformed. You can't possibly deny that he should have taken these obvious lies at face value before presenting them to Tynwald and the public, and he should have clarified the facts first? It was so obvious to everyone that the answer was total horseshit, it makes a complete mockery of our whole political process - as an elected member you should be embarrassed about the perception this gives the public!

To reiterate, in his manifesto he stated that the DoI needed shaking up, he then requested to be minister of the DoI, then he ignores everything he said about the department 10 months ago (when seeking election), and let's Longworth tickle his tummy while feeding him with  'duff gen'!

To make things even more ridiculous, he then asks to run the DfE and resigns within 2 months - the guy is a fuckin disgrace!!!!! 

 

 

This.

How long has Crookall been taking the taxpayer's shilling, 2 stints as MHK and 1 as MLC? If he is unable to recognise the glaringly obvious (including what he asked to address) with that experience under his belt then it doesn't auger well for anything else that might come his way.

Having said that, at the start of his DOI tenure he did state that it was part of his remit to "defend" the Dept.

[asitis]

8 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

he did state that it was part of his remit to "defend" the Dept.

Is there someone who will defend the taxpayers from the DOI ?

[Holte End]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/

Nope.

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Will Halsall said:

Roger, am I mistaken here - I was always under the impression that the Department Minister was able to (maybe through CoMin) have his CE removed if he had lost confidence in him/her?

 

ETA: https://www.gov.im/media/1359547/the-government-code-february-2017.pdf

18. 4.20  Where in the rare event that a Minister finds that he cannot work reasonably with a particular official in a key position, it is open to the Minister to bring this to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department (or to the Chief Minister or Chief Secretary if the official concerned is the Chief Executive Officer). In such circumstances, every effort would be made, involving the Public Services Commission where appropriate, to secure a satisfactory resolution to the situation.

Removing the CEO isn't what that says exactly though.  "A satisfactory resolution" to such conflicts in the last government meant that the Minister was sacked on at least one occasion (Beecroft) and probably another (Thomas if he was clashing with Greenhow, which he probably was).

But in the case of the DoI, it isn't the (acting) CEO who is the problem, but those underneath who are much more difficult to shift.  And the convention seems to be that politicians have no control over them - indeed should not interact with them in any way.  Hence Ashford refusing to even speak to Ranson.

The Departmental CEO is a relatively new position, they're not really there to manage the Department (which is why there sometimes needs to be 'Operations Managers' and the like) but to manage the Minister.  If the Department is failing so badly that even the politicians notice, the CEO can be sacrificed without actually needing to change things and failure can continue.  You only have to look at all the Departments who lost their CEOs in the last government: DHSC, DEFA, DHA, DED, DESC.  Black only lasted a month afterward the Election.  Only Treasury and Cabinet Office survived the period.  The job in the spending Departments seems to be one for a very well-paid scapegoat.

Perhaps Crookall resigned because he wanted to change things at the Department for Giving Money to Your Mates and was told the civil service didn't want it.

[Will Halsall]

13 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Removing the CEO isn't what that says exactly though.  "A satisfactory resolution" to such conflicts in the last government meant that the Minister was sacked on at least one occasion (Beecroft) and probably another (Thomas if he was clashing with Greenhow, which he probably was).

But in the case of the DoI, it isn't the (acting) CEO who is the problem, but those underneath who are much more difficult to shift.  And the convention seems to be that politicians have no control over them - indeed should not interact with them in any way.  Hence Ashford refusing to even speak to Ranson.

The Departmental CEO is a relatively new position, they're not really there to manage the Department (which is why there sometimes needs to be 'Operations Managers' and the like) but to manage the Minister.  If the Department is failing so badly that even the politicians notice, the CEO can be sacrificed without actually needing to change things and failure can continue.  You only have to look at all the Departments who lost their CEOs in the last government: DHSC, DEFA, DHA, DED, DESC.  Black only lasted a month afterward the Election.  Only Treasury and Cabinet Office survived the period.  The job in the spending Departments seems to be one for a very well-paid scapegoat.

Perhaps Crookall resigned because he wanted to change things at the Department for Giving Money to Your Mates and was told the civil service didn't want it.

Thank you 👏👏

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

But in the case of the DoI, it isn't the (acting) CEO who is the problem, but those underneath who are much more difficult to shift.  And the convention seems to be that politicians have no control over them - indeed should not interact with them in any way.  Hence Ashford refusing to even speak to Ranson.

That presumed convention is not supported by the quoted part of the code which refers to a "particular official in a key position" and then goes on to make provision for alternative routes if it is the CEO who is the issue.  That indicates, to me, that interaction by the minister with other key officials within the department is foreseen and is probably an expected part of the role.  If the minister only listens to the CEO that carries the danger of selective information, just as we have seen. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That presumed convention is not supported by the quoted part of the code which refers to a "particular official in a key position" and then goes on to make provision for alternative routes if it is the CEO who is the issue.  That indicates, to me, that interaction by the minister with other key officials within the department is foreseen and is probably an expected part of the role.  If the minister only listens to the CEO that carries the danger of selective information, just as we have seen. 

But you only have to look at Stu's comment: " Imagine you were CEO and your minister was checking up on you with other more junior staff? It would be untenable, and surely there must be a chain of command", to see that is exactly how things are expected to operate.  Even when Ministers are discussing things with those further down the line, it is likely to be in meetings where the CEO is also present.

As you say, even without deliberate manipulation, this is simply inefficient and information gets mangled and edited.  That is exactly what happened with Covid as everything passed via Magson and Greenhow (and lots of other stages often as well).  It also means that all communication between Departments has to go the same way, the main objective is that those at the top feel they are 'in control'.  Rather than walking ten metres to an opposite number's desk or picking up the phone, a long chain of memos and reports has to take place to get something to happen as information goes up and down the silos.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But you only have to look at Stu's comment: " Imagine you were CEO and your minister was checking up on you with other more junior staff? It would be untenable, and surely there must be a chain of command", to see that is exactly how things are expected to operate.  Even when Ministers are discussing things with those further down the line, it is likely to be in meetings where the CEO is also present.

As you say, even without deliberate manipulation, this is simply inefficient and information gets mangled and edited.  That is exactly what happened with Covid as everything passed via Magson and Greenhow (and lots of other stages often as well).  It also means that all communication between Departments has to go the same way, the main objective is that those at the top feel they are 'in control'.  Rather than walking ten metres to an opposite number's desk or picking up the phone, a long chain of memos and reports has to take place to get something to happen as information goes up and down the silos.

I agree that this seems to be how it works in practice, but is the practice in line with the code?