And how is that defined?
Not shitting in your own nest is a fairly obvious one.
There are lots of indicators as to whether a country is well run. Life expectancy, GDP, unemployment, disease rates, credit rating, etc.
Different political viewpoints will vary as to the weighting each are given. However, it is widely regarded that moving those indicators in one particular direction is a good thing.
2 Likes
Not doing big dumps on all and sundry!
Good question! Depends on the topic I would say.
But pretty much all things that fall under the so called âsocial contractâ are generally about providing a good level of service for all citizens and looking to improve them.
What has happened with regards to water companies is that this is clearly been broken and the solution is that the levels of sewage discharged into the rivers / sea should be reduced dramatically and quickly. Fundamentally that is the only thing that really matters in this instance.
I also think its far to say that you could extend this problem wider at the moment. There will undoubtedly be differing opinions on how to âfixâ things but I would also argue is how were they allowed to become broken in the first place?
1 Like
This is a human wide issue. I doubt there is a country in the world that doesnât dump untreated sewage into a water body such as the sea or a river (not to excuse the UK btw). Once underground sewers existed, the issue of localised sanitation became less of a problem, and where our wastewater went? WellâŚout of sight, out of mind. Who cares where the wastewater ends up, so long as itâs not sitting out the front of your house, right? No money in fixing that situation. People are only starting to become more conscious of the environment to pressure governments and companies to clean up their act.
1 Like
You are right. I donât suppose the Ukrainians will mind a bit more inconvenience. If anyone can cope with inconvenience, it is that nation. They must be pretty used to inconvenience now.
Yes because that is completely what youâre concerned about.
I quote your original post,
Sounds to me like the Ukrainian people are only a convenient excuse for you here.
Either way, blaming the workers striking is a mistake, because the intransigent party here is a government keen to stretch it out as long as possible, and associate the labour unions with the Labour Party, to milk out whatever political capital they can from it.
Because it is Ukrainians who are organising a lot of these events. The city is being turned into a mini Ukraine with cultural events and it will be a showcase for them which will be viewed all over Europe.
I repeat they could have chosen a different day. This is a cynical ploy for publicity. Judging by vox pops on Radio Merseyside lots of locals agree. Although I was dismayed to read quite a few anti Ukraine comments in the Liverpool Echo from those supporting the choice of that day. Some people may well have different motivations for wanting to see it disrupted.
I repeat there is no justification at all for choosing this day or indeed cup final day.
By all means carry on with industrial action and the dispute with the rail companies but do it on normal working daysâŚ
3 Likes
The best tactic would be to strike from 5 am to midday on Monday to Friday on all commuter lines into London.
That would cause the maximum disruption and financial pain for the Tories and their cronies.
3 Likes
I disagreed at âEitherâ
Thanks for the clarification here, I understand better what you mean now.
However, the justifications simply are that you need to cause maximum disruption, otherwise whatâs the point? Iâm not sure how itâs a cynical ploy, itâs genuinely what the strikes are required to do to have any impact at all.
Are they then supposed to wait for a day when thereâs engineering works planned to go on strike so that they donât inconvenience anyone?
Iâm sort of with Rambler with this one. It isnât about not inconveniencing anyone - but being more selective on who or when you inconvenience. For example, are any of these companies striking on the day of the coronation, or are they putting on extra services?
1 Like
The unflushable turd. My understanding is that she did go a bit bonkers on the expenses front when she became Foreign Secretary and afterwards.
Donât get me wrong, itâs not that I think the coronation should be exempt, but can you just imagine the right-wing rags if the unions were to announce a strike for the coronation?
At least Eurovision and the FA Cup Final are unlikely to be things that the audiences of the rags would be up in arms over.
Itâs a delicate balancing act they need to achieve here.
Reading the article, sheâs essentially claiming that the campaign and transition work done should be considered government expenses.
On the other hand, itâs quite clear that any personal or political events should be paid out of pocket.
They should make her pay back the ÂŁ50 billion while theyâre at it.
1 Like
3 Likes
I thought this quote was interesting:
âThe fact is,â he says, âpeople come into No 10 knowing less about [complex organisations] than most people running companies employing less than 20 people. Thatâs forgivable. What is unforgivable is that almost without exception, they do not want to learn how to do it. They think they know best.
When you here politicians complaining about the Civil Service that is what you are dealing with. Someone with very little experience of running complex organisations trying to dictate to the people who run the most complex organisations possible how to do their job. Badly.
I think that is why I was impressed by Keir Starmer trying to get Sue Gray on board as an adviser. Anyone who wants to form a government should at least have some grounding as to what the job actually involves. They are there to set policy, not run things, but actually knowing what impact that policy would have (and even if it is possible) would actually create better government.
9 Likes
No matter how terrible you thought he was , he was actually much much worse.
Iâm putting this on my âmust readâ list.
1 Like