Moghrey Mie Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 Part of the problem is 'systems' which lose their humanity and fail to take individual cases into account. And 'red tape' is sometimes there for a reason. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 39 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: That’s not exclusive to the Post Office or their position as a state-owned business though. It’s a problem with the right that any organisation or individual has to bring a private prosecution. The football Premier League have had people sent to prison for showing a dodgy live stream in their pub, and that case was just as dubious as anything the Post Office did. I do appreciate what you mean, but it’s not exclusive to the state sector either. Fishes rot from the head. And you will always get people trying to cover up their mistakes or throw other people under the bus. There are a lot of people in Cheshire breathing a sigh of relief that Lucy Letby got thrown under the bus instead of them, put it that way. That is true and, yes, the private sector has the same issues. However, to a degree they can be 'forgiven' because they are there to generate profits for their shareholders, but that is tempered with regulation and initiatives such as ESG. But the public sector is meant to serve the public not act against it. I wonder if the question is ever asked whether this or that is for the benefit of the public, or is it for the benefit of the state? I know there is a semantic argument to be had as to what the state actually is but repeatedly the actions or inactions of state has caused very real harm to the people it is supposed to serve. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 The problem here is that we no longer have direct democracy and the government we elect has become weak, ineffective, powerless and meaningless. Real decision making and authority has been delegated to a bureaucratic technocracy. We have government by mandarins and a managerial cadre imported from the U.K. They primarily look after the interests of the Island's few and not the many. Crucially they also look after themselves and the rewards are often eye-watering (Ask yourself where the real money must be going ?). They imitate U.K. policy and practice in everything. The explanation is mostly in the changing economy of the Island over recent decades. In the days of Manx tourism everyone was part of the same enterprise and the whole population from top to bottom had a significant stake in the same economy. Tourism in the summer and agriculture/fishing/manufacturing in the winter. There were still hard times and stark inequalities but we had a model that largely worked. We had government for the people and for the whole Island and there was meaningful local input. That all changed in the '70s but particularly in the '80s, and now we have an economy based on property ownership and wealth. Real and meaningful 'Manxness' has become a mere marketing brand and government has effectively been contracted out. To answer Gladys' question, the Island needs a better State that serves all the people, so get involved in politics by all means. Just don't bother voting as the way things stand you're largely wasting your time. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 Capitalism ladies and gents, working as intended. Get along for the ride or else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 12 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: It’s more the other way around, the senior management set the ethos and the rest of the organisation follows it. Kensington and Chelsea Council have long been notorious as a haven of Thatcherite principles, so it’s not exactly a massive surprise they didn’t give a fuck about the people in social housing. The government department was run by Eric Pickles, who has always been about “cutting red tape” without any thought to the consequences. This isn’t new, Pickles was like this when he was just starting out in Bradford. The effect of his “reforms” in Bradford council in 1990 are still being felt in that city now. What the whole thing shows is that you need a regulator which is well funded and which has teeth. Without that, they’re either toothless or inexperienced or you get regulatory capture. The Tories, of course, ensured that none of the UK regulators have any sort of power- there last thing they did was change the rules of the UK FCA to dictate that the UK FCA was responsible for promoting business as well as its regulatory objectives. By quoting Kensington & Chelsea Council I assume you're referring to Grenfell? What's it got to do with Thatcher? She wasn't in power until 1979 and Grenfell was already under construction in 1972 and completed in 1974. And Eric Pickles wasn't an MP until 1992. The issue with Grenfell was systemic failures from inception to completion and subsequently and at every level, including building control and inspection. And of course it's not just Grenfell, it's a nationwide issue as lots of people living in the high-rise can now attest to. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: By quoting Kensington & Chelsea Council I assume you're referring to Grenfell? What's it got to do with Thatcher? She wasn't in power until 1979 and Grenfell was already under construction in 1972 and completed in 1974. And Eric Pickles wasn't an MP until 1992 Grenfell was perfectly safe until the botched refurbishment in the early 2010s. A refurbishment that was botched because RBKC council cut corners at every opportunity. Pickles was specifically named and criticised in the Grenfell report as being behind the “cutting of red tape” that meant there was no regulatory or legislative oversight over the dangerous cladding and insulation. The issues people have in high rises now go back to Pickles and his desire to “cut red tape”. No red tape means no regulation and no regulation means builders can do what they want with no comeback. So they did, and now people are stuck in flats they can’t sell and the developers and builders are long gone with all the cash. Edited September 5 by Ringy Rose 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 51 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said: … a managerial cadre imported from the U.K. Among the many other issues that you correctly identify, I think the significance of this is not fully appreciated. These people are committed to themselves, not the community of the Island. They didn’t grow up here, they live among people with whom they share no background or common identity, and they are steeped in process and approaches developed elsewhere. Of course the Island isn’t sufficiently large enough to develop a pool of talent to lead the entirety of the public service, and new ideas/thinking are vital or we will stagnate. However, a leadership cadre with no deep roots here is not conducive to achieving national improvement, nor to developing public policy tailored to our needs. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said: Real decision making and authority has been delegated to a bureaucratic technocracy. No it hasn’t. The problem with Isle of Man is that power is concentrated in the hands of the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister is accountable to nobody, and certainly not the electorate. The Chief Minister should be a directly elected position in the same way Mayors are in the UK. Edited September 5 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 13 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: No it hasn’t. The problem with Isle of Man is that power is concentrated in the hands of the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister is accountable to nobody, and certainly not the electorate. The Chief Minister should be a directly elected position in the same way Mayors are in the UK. I don’t disagree with you, but the CM is accountable…to Tynwald. The extent to which that accountability is robust, and how realistically it would be exercised, are moot points. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 I do not think publicly elected chief minister will go any where near the control that the civil service has, MHK's have no power to wield over the behemoth that is just self serving/preserving. You think Cannan got rid of the head of the viper, think again bet the pension we are forking out as well as the golden handshake will work out to be the same as about 25% of the cost of Liverpool. The landing stage not the city, but I could be wrong there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: That’s not exclusive to the Post Office or their position as a state-owned business though. It’s a problem with the right that any organisation or individual has to bring a private prosecution. The football Premier League have had people sent to prison for showing a dodgy live stream in their pub, and that case was just as dubious as anything the Post Office did. Not sure the live stream fraud convictions are comparable to the PO. The PO had its own investigation department many of whom had grown up through the ranks from working behind PO counters. They seemed to have little real investigation training and their grasp of the obligations of investigating and bringing prosecutions was patchy, to say the least - there were matters which should have been disclosed in the prosecutions that weren't, like the flaws in the Horizon system. When evidence of theft could not be established they bargained with those they accused of theft to take a guilty plea to false accounting. Bang, guilty, criminal sanction and record, and at the same time demanding that the SPOs make good the losses. There were questions about how that revenue was accounted for in PO, never a clear reply, but it ended up on the bottom line. Meanwhile, in investigating the suspected thefts, no one looked to see where the money stolen went, (Maseratis, holiday homes, lifestyle) so they didn't even establish that the SPOs had benefited from the money lost, which itself may have raised questions as to the real cause of the 'losses'. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 3 minutes ago, Vaaish said: I don’t disagree with you, but the CM is accountable…to Tynwald. The extent to which that accountability is robust, and how realistically it would be exercised, are moot points. Indeed. Did the CM draw up the plans and project manage the LPL ferry terminal, for example? No he didn't. SMUJ is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: No it hasn’t. The problem with Isle of Man is that power is concentrated in the hands of the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister is accountable to nobody, and certainly not the electorate. The Chief Minister should be a directly elected position in the same way Mayors are in the UK. The Chief Secretary (or "CEO" now) and the CS seniors remain the real unaccountables. The electorate get the option of turfing Alf et al at the next election. Nobody gets a say about the unelected, regardless of their performance or conduct. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 22 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Did the CM draw up the plans and project manage the LPL ferry terminal, for example? Did the politicians in charge at the time decree that the new landing stage had to have certain facilities and also be within walking distance of the city centre? I rather think they did. 56 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: You think Cannan got rid of the head of the viper Do you think he just suddenly decided to retire one day? 59 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: bet the pension we are forking out as well as the golden handshake will work out to be the same as about 25% of the cost of Liverpool Yes, I’m completely sure a man on £150,000 a year was paid £25,000,000 to go away. Do you even think about what you post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: The Chief Secretary (or "CEO" now) and the CS seniors remain the real unaccountables. The electorate get the option of turfing Alf et al at the next election. Nobody gets a say about the unelected, regardless of their performance or conduct. The last one was so unaccountable he was shoved out. So was the former head of the DOI. I don’t get the option of turfing Cannan out. I don’t even get the option of turfing out the MHKs who supported Cannan, as neither of my MHKs did. The civil service isn’t a political role. If you want it to be then fine, but look at America to see how well that doesn’t work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.