Politics The General Election 2015

[Gumbo]

Jeremy Corbyn may just become the most "quoted-out-of-context" politician in British history. Saying you're "not happy" about a shoot to kill policy isn't the same as saying you wouldn't sanction it. No one should be happy about it! Problem with Corbyn is that he keeps to talking to journalists in actual sentences rather than crafted soundbites; that's why he's doomed.

Except the next question was very direct about whether he would sanction it. The only correct answer for virtually the whole population is yes, if there is a terrorist walking around shooting people, then given the opportunity he should be taken down by whatever means necessary. Instead Corbyn continued the wooliness. This either makes him an idiot, who you wouldn't want to run the country. Or if he genuinely thinks that in the event of a marauding gun attack on our streets the policy shouldn't be to take out the Terrorist, then he becomes a dangerous idiot who you wouldn't want to run the country.

The misguided quarter of a million people who voted to make Corbyn the leader are surely the only people who could possibly think that when there is a guy walking around with a gun shooting people dead in the street, you DON'T take them out. the other 60 odd million people old enough to form an opinion in this country would of course say, aim center mass and drop them as soon as you can.

 

[ECA]

I worked for the Public Sector about 10 years ago, doing an admin job for one of the 17 local councils we have.

Far and away the easiest job I've ever done. Ridiculously overstaffed, no pressure to get anything done whatsoever, lots of mind numbing tasks that could easily have been automated. From the people I know still there, not much has changed.

That was my experience when I did a placement at Ofsted for a summer, it was a fucking joke.
A full days work could've easily been done in 2 hours.
The hardest working guys there were the internal post service, and even that was breezy.

There was a team of like 20 managers 4-5 senior managers and some HR bods for the building as well.
A whole building with ~200+ people and you could've got their job done with about 30 people and a decent IT infrastructure.

If that was a private company it'd be bankrupted by competition so fast you wouldn't have even heard of it.

 

[Raven]

The Public Services you both speak about seem to be Council Offices and the endless Admin/Management systems, NOT the front line public sector jobs. There is no way in the world my job could be classed as easy and there is no way in the world people can claim there is no pressure to perform because as i have stated we are in a restructure every year and the services are evaluated on how well they are doing. My pay is low, my job is extremely stressful and touches upon areas i am confident many would struggle to work with. When we talk about pressure i challenge anyone not to feel extreme pressure when you are trying to find solid evidence needed to prove the child you are working with is being sexually abused, or the pressure you feel when you then have to spend weeks in court being shouted at and cross examined, all because you are trying to save that child and her parents just so happen to be rich enough to pay for a good defense lawyer. When you have to sit in a room and make that agonizing vote to give the Social Worker the agreement needed to take away a child from its parents. What about when you are trying to help the single parent to manage their children only to find the reason they are struggling is because for the last 10 years they have been beaten and raped over and over again by an abusive partner. The list is endless and i am sure many of the public sector uniformed services would also have examples just as stressful.
Yet despite all of this we told ah well get over it, you had it easy too long!

Don't get me wrong some public sector do an amazing job but even then there seems to be far more managers than necessary. I was in hospital this year and it was farcical how many people were walking round with clipboards doing absolutely nothing. They could bin half the management and nobody would notice, use that cash to hire more nurses.

Generally in the private sector you have around 1 manager for 50 odd staff. From talking to a friend who used to work for Birmingham Council, quite high up in HR, its about 1 per 10 staff, a horrendous waste of money.

 

[Gwadien]

We need a complete overhaul of culture in the public sector, constantly making cuts is not making any difference to the middle management.

I remember when my mums place got loads of cuts (She does similar stuff to @Talivar) she didnt give a shit about losing her job - the reviewers were going around working out if peoples jobs were justified - but the staff were way too busy dealing with a shed load of cases.

These people are on fuck all, I think my mums on many £14k (part time) and shes been working there all her life.

However, the management at the same time were going around saving their own skins, seeing which ships of the fleet were sinking so were attaching theirselves to other projects which weren't being cut which they actually had very little to do.

These people were getting paid between £70k-£100k

Loads of workers got laid off, the sector is in disarray and the management kept their job.

We need external examiners to sit in public sector areas for long periods of time and encourage whistle blowing from the workers, the management are all in each others - any kind of reporting would lead to the reporter losing their job but with a nice pay off to keep quiet about it.

 

[DaGaffer]

Except the next question was very direct about whether he would sanction it. The only correct answer for virtually the whole population is yes, if there is a terrorist walking around shooting people, then given the opportunity he should be taken down by whatever means necessary. Instead Corbyn continued the wooliness. This either makes him an idiot, who you wouldn't want to run the country. Or if he genuinely thinks that in the event of a marauding gun attack on our streets the policy shouldn't be to take out the Terrorist, then he becomes a dangerous idiot who you wouldn't want to run the country.

The misguided quarter of a million people who voted to make Corbyn the leader are surely the only people who could possibly think that when there is a guy walking around with a gun shooting people dead in the street, you DON'T take them out. the other 60 odd million people old enough to form an opinion in this country would of course say, aim center mass and drop them as soon as you can.

No, it wasn't. Listen to what he said. He was speaking about shoot to kill as a policy. That isn't the same as sanctioning the killing of an armed assailant. Its not "woolly", its actually a distinct point. If you actually read the commentary with the article its explains the specifics of why the UK doesn't have a shoot to kill policy, but the option to kill an assailant is available:

The UK's police forces do not have a blanket "shoot-to-kill" policy - but at the same time, police can be legally justified in shooting even if the attacker ends up dead.

It all comes down to the law on self-defence. The only person who is legally responsible for pulling the trigger is the police officer holding the gun.

That officer must be able to justify under the law that their action amounted to reasonable force to protect themselves or others.

That means no chief constable, let alone a minister, would be ever able to tell an armed officer how to respond to the specific scene before them.

So if the officer could show the only way to stop a bomber was to shoot them in the head, then he or she would be legally entitled to do so.

The reason for doing it this way around is to avoid being America, where the barriers to trigger an armed response are set much lower, which generates the carnage we see on American streets every day.

The reality is a Prime Minister doesn't have to set a shoot to kill policy in the UK because the rules we have are already more than adequate, and it was a baiting journalist question. Corbyn's mistake was to engage the question intellectually instead of saying "the police already have the powers they need".

 

[Talivar]

I think the problem with the Public Sector is as Gwadien has described, there is far too many managers and middle managers but these are not the people facing cuts. They just slide into a new project and carry on while the frontline staff all take the fall.

 

[Gwadien]

What the huge problem is though is that there's no political party which can deliver these cuts - Labour want to beef up the public sector whilst the management are most likely Tory voters anyway.

 

[Gumbo]

No, it wasn't. Listen to what he said. He was speaking about shoot to kill as a policy. That isn't the same as sanctioning the killing of an armed assailant. Its not "woolly", its actually a distinct point. If you actually read the commentary with the article its explains the specifics of why the UK doesn't have a shoot to kill policy, but the option to kill an assailant is available:



The reason for doing it this way around is to avoid being America, where the barriers to trigger an armed response are set much lower, which generates the carnage we see on American streets every day.

The reality is a Prime Minister doesn't have to set a shoot to kill policy in the UK because the rules we have are already more than adequate, and it was a baiting journalist question. Corbyn's mistake was to engage the question intellectually instead of saying "the police already have the powers they need".

He was so clear that the Labour party has again had to issue a clarification, again... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...6.html?1447763962&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

The man is a lightweight flake who is metres out of his depth. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be happier as it's going to keep Labour out of power for years and possibly decades.

 

[DaGaffer]

He was so clear that the Labour party has again had to issue a clarification, again... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...6.html?1447763962&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

The man is a lightweight flake who is metres out of his depth. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be happier as it's going to keep Labour out of power for years and possibly decades.

A clarification that says exactly what I said in the earlier post; because as I said in an even earlier post; talk...sentence..bad, talk...soundbite...goooood.

 

[Talivar]

Any predictions for tomorrows Cuts?

 

[Gwadien]

The Future.

 

[Raven]

Lots of stuff that could be better handled by the private sector I imagine.

 

[Gwadien]

Lots of stuff that could be better handled by the private sector I imagine.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

 

[Raven]

Since when did anyone become more efficient when they don't give a toss how much money they piss up the wall?

 

[Gwadien]

Since when did anyone become more efficient when they don't give a toss how much money they piss up the wall?

You don't become more efficient by removing the workforce and keeping the management.

How many times does @Talivar have to explain this.

No party will have a mandate to clear out the ridiculous bureaucracy, because every party benefits, it's ridiculous.

It's like a Tory thing 'ahh yes, be Anti-Public Sector, that's auto votes!'

Whilst Labour are the anti of that, why the fuck can't we work for the betterment of a country, rather than working for party politics.

 

[Raven]

The government aren't the ones who decide how local government cover staffing. If it was privatised you would soon see the management slashed to exactly how many are actually needed.

 

[Gwadien]

The government aren't the ones who decide how local government cover staffing. If it was privatised you would soon see the management slashed to exactly how many are actually needed.

No, but the Government can start the discussion, as opposed to making the cuts and laughing at the councils as they suffer, and writing letters to them asking why they're failing.

(lol.)

 

[Raven]

If they did that then the councils would be bitching and moaning about being controlled by central government.

 

[Gwadien]

If they did that then the councils would be bitching and moaning about being controlled by central government.

It doesn't hurt to start a discussion about it though.

 

[Talivar]

The problem with the Government atm is they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of their cuts, as evidenced by the way Cameron acted in regards to his local council cut backs. There is also talk atm that they still plan to go ahead and make more cuts to the police, while at the same time promising the country they are going to do more to keep them safe. We know money needs to be saved but if we are so desperate to save money and reduce the deficit why do we see changes that actually make life better for the richer part of society? Surely if it was so abd that even the Police need more cuts then we cant afford things like the inheritance changes ect

 

[Ormorof]

Because giving rich people money means they suddenly decide to spend money locally rather than squirrelling it away in the Cayman Islands

 

[Gumbo]

We're going to have harsh cuts this year and next whilst we have such an ineffectual opposition. Then things will ease a bit as we run up to the next election. The cuts would have been less deep, ironically, if the loony left hadn't made Corbyn leader. At the moment they're doing it hard to get it out of the way while they can get away with it. this will actually help the tories come 2020 when they'll be able to ease it quite a bit having met their targets ahead of schedule.

It's working out well for them, and ultimately will work out well for the country too. Couple of tough years ahead for some people though, I don't doubt that.

 

[Scouse]

Hook line and sinker.

 

[old.user4556]

Guys, #SpendingReview on Twitter will give you updates - Osborne has done a massive U turn on controversial tax credit cuts.

IDS to "move on" ?

 

[Raven]

All sounding pretty good, lets see if they stick to it.

 

[Gwadien]

I really hate the new buzzword 'Security'

 

[old.user4556]

Does it make you feel insecure?

 

[Gwadien]

Does it make you feel insecure?

I just hate it when there's clearly some bloke who's job it is to find words which makes the public feel better about their selves.

SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY

We're implementing the Snoopers charter btw.

BUT BUT THAT WILL RUIN MY LIFE

BUT BUT


SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY
SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY

 

[Gumbo]

Guys, #SpendingReview on Twitter will give you updates - Osborne has done a massive U turn on controversial tax credit cuts.

IDS to "move on" ?

Political masterstroke though. Criticised for tax credit cuts then gets Labour to agree to them if they are phased in more gently. Caused a massive split in the widening chasm within the Labour party, then..... Come the Autumn review and he goes "just kidding we didn't need them at all".

Labour have spent the last week banging on about Police cuts, Osbourne stands up and says, no cuts to the police, WTF, you been talkin' about?

You may hate the tories, you may particularly hate Osbourne, but politically, if you've ever been a fan of shows like The West Wing, what the tories just pulled off was quite striking.

 

[Raven]

Labour would whinge if he announced he was doubling the budget for everyone and had the figures to back it up. Their politics basically amount to whinging these days.