I find that a more or less meaningless term personally, but if you’re comfortable with calling yourself that - cool.
I’m comfortable with calling myself ‘left’ generally, as long as that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything some other person calling themself ‘left’ has said/done. 
4 Likes
It means you can deploy moderate right or left wing approaches where applicable. The whole right/left political dialectic is a false game to me, there are no societies without individuals, nor individuals without society.
3 Likes
Ok. I think one can have a general tendency to a view of the world or how society should be that could be described as more ‘left’ or more ‘right/conservative’. Of course few people fall completely in just one category on every single issue though, otherwise it’s very likely just dogmatic parroting, which is obviously stupid.
But again, just arguing about semantics. When we could be shouting at each other.
5 Likes
Dare I look at the Global Politics thread? 
2 Likes
Go on… you know you want to!
2 Likes
You are one of the few who will be able to read about half the posts in the last 12 hours…
4 Likes
4 Likes
No, not really, that’s the ultimate time to keep your cool for me.
Business is business.
But everyone is different and everyone works there own way, what works for you may not work for others.
1 Like
An employee? If so let the police deal with it and they are obviously dismissed. if it got physical you give them an opportunity.
No, I can do far more damage with words, the pen being mightier etc.
1 Like
2 Likes
I see that the Chief Whip for Labour has added to the number of prominent Labour politicians imploring Corbyn to apologise and withdraw various comments he has made.
All any of them seem to be asking for is some contrition, yet Corbyn’s answered his exclusion with letters from his lawyers demanding reinstatement to the PLP.
I do find it utterly baffling. This is a guy that’s constantly put himself front and centre of some of the most contentious issues of the last 40 years, from Apartheid, to Northern Ireland, to Palestine. He’s preached the importance of dialogue as justification for meeting with controversial groups and refusing to condemn various incidents.
Why can he not find it in himself to simply say sorry?
Re: Patel. I don’t like her. She comes across as abrasive, condescending and insincere. However, I bet she’s also extremely driven and effective at shaking things up. I bet she’s demanding.
That’s not easy to get along with. It’s very easy to cross the line from being demanding to being unreasonable. I can easily see how a department run by her becomes a difficult environment to work in very quickly. The wheels of the civil service can move pretty slowly.
Just reading between the lines from the report I’d say she needs (anger) management training. She probably also needs a buffer between her and the senior civil servant in the Home Office. At the same time, the report does suggest that the civil servants in her department could/should have been more adaptable and more responsive.
That would only have acted in a constant vicious circle and perhaps with a different style of leadership they would have been more receptive?Had the civil service been less stuck in its ways they would have been? Probably both factors in this fall out.
The previous Tribunal case involving the employee who allegedly suffered mental health issues was settled for £25k with no admission of liability. It’s hard to draw any conclusions as to what actually happened or who was culpable. I would note that the settlement amount is on the low side.
The Rutnam proceedings will be far more relevant here. I’m not massively surprised he wasn’t consulted as part of this investigation. His allegations about Patel’s behaviour will already have been set out in his Tribunal claim and perhaps Sir Alex didn’t want to prejudice that process. That being said, I would have wanted to speak to him…if only to avoid the suggestion that’s followed, that the investigation was inadequate.
We don’t know the details but from the summary my view is that most employers would not dismiss someone in these circumstances. They would be more likely to mandate a management training course, give the individual a warning, transfer them to another department, have somebody work alongside them, put them on a performance review or perhaps demote them (or a combination of these).
Clearly if this was a repeated issue then that would inevitably lead to second/third/final warnings and ultimately dismissal. Whilst there does seem to be a pattern of behaviour with Patel, we don’t know the details to be confident that in any other setting she’d be sacked. The chances are she probably wouldn’t be (just based on the summary, I don’t know enough either!) but you’d have to think she’s running out of chances.
Personally I think she’s lucky to have a ministerial job at all after her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials 3 years ago. For me that ought to have automatically made her unsuitable for ministerial office.
But, you know, whichever party is in power they have to pick politicians to fill these roles so it’s inevitable most of them will be incompetent and/or unsuitable.
Imagine if you were interviewing to fill these positions and all 600+ MPs were able to apply, regardless of political affiliation? If you had the option you’d probably only fill half the positions and hope that some more people will apply beyond the shitfest of candidates in the first round.
2 Likes
Having to fill cabinet with Leavers already puts you at a massive disadvantage in terms of MP quality.
You are scraping the barrel as a starting point. It’s probably the biggest reason people like Patel can survive.
3 Likes
Not true actually. Mediocrity doesn’t discriminate between Remainers and Leavers, but nice try.
1 Like
Yeah but I also suspect that despite being effective at shaking things up she’s piss poor at actually getting stuff done. I’d bet that has lead to the various conflicts as stuff simply isn’t getting done to her satisfaction.
Re Corbyn. I wonder if we’re seeing the real animal here now? What are his motives here?
2 Likes
But halving your available talent pool will. I think Kloppo’s point was that by limiting yourself to 50% of your appointees, that barrel is going to be scraped.
3 Likes
I think you have two categories of politician on the front benches of the Tory party at the moment. Those that are fully aware of the issues arising from what they are supporting and lie there way through things i.e Gove or are simply just not clued up enough to understand those issues - Raab.
1 Like
I think there are a few aspects.
Its unfortunate that people tend to somewhat turn a blind eye for talented individuals. This should never occur but it does. The value that person brings is percieved as being too important. Numerous Tory MPs have hit back at the accusations by praising the work she does, which is immaterial.
I have also seen some comentary (including Tory MPs) that her being a short, BAME, woman makes those in civil service pathetic, wimps etc as if bullying requires physcial intimidation and not abuse of power. This is also nonsense. Even worse making accusations/insinuations that they are only occuring because of her race or gender. Its dissapointing in this age to see these type of arguements made. Effectivly playing race or sexism card trying to portray her as a victim.
Even before the report Patel was viewed as having ugly views (death penalty, deportations, attacks on judges etc). She was not viewed as talented. See her interview atacking counter terrorism not terrorism 
or propensity to call every refugee illegal. Or huge error in jusgement with regards to israel.
I remember the documentry Tories at war, and those within her own party calling her disgraceful, hated and incompetent
Add to that accusations of bullying stretching back before she was even an MP.
She is unfit to hold a minsterial role.
The whole situation stinks.
To further add to this steaming great turd the revelations that the goverment prevented Sir Alex from interviewing Rutnam (despite his protests), that Boris sat on this report several months, and that he further wanted the report toned down further. It looks like she is only in a job because of her loyalty.
Just like those defending Cummings trip to Durham a few months ago it just further diminishes the trust and perception of competency.
I absolutly would have sacked her, she is a liability. Caused several resignations, complaints from 3 goverment departments and has been associated with a past employee trying to commit suicide. For me she is at the gross misconduct level coupled with general incompetence. Not an improvement plan process.
12 Likes
2 Likes
She does have a buffer - Her Special Advisors provide that role, as do her staff in her office.
I suspect part of the reason the author of the report resigned is because he expected what has since happened - the PM and others defending the Home Secretary, by taking comments from his report and putting the blame on civil servants. I wouldn’t be surprised if those comments in the report were something he had been asked to include to soften it.
2 Likes