The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Carbuncle 0]

20 minutes ago, crookesey said:

I don’t take much notice of this sort of stuff for the following reason. I don’t believe that the grey suits that abide within the corridors of power would allow the actions that some of you guys put at the feet of politicians of either party. Do you think for a minute that Tony Blair had the authority to order our troops to invade Iraq? That decision was no doubt made by those guys and gals that you have never heard of when they eventually receive their peerages/damehoods.

 

My definition of democratic government is  for the grey suits to order the politicians to do their level best to fool all of the people all of the time.

Do you have any evidence you can share for your theory about 'grey suits'?

[crookesey 620]

7 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Do you have any evidence you can share for your theory about 'grey suits'?

If I had I would be so important that I wouldn’t be posting on this forum, also it’s very difficult to provide evidence of a theory.

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

21 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Do you have any evidence you can share for your theory about 'grey suits'?

To be fair, I don't really think it's some wild conspiracy beyond the realms of possibility.  Crookesey makes quite an interesting  point.

 

We have all seen Yes Minister and The Thick of It. Nobody actually believes that the p.m. reads every single line and word of every single letter and memo and policy document and briefing note the passes through his office.

 

Nobody actually believes that the Health Secretary is going round individually to every trust and hospital negotiating their preferred supplier of bog rolls and cleaning fluid.

 

Nobody actually believes that the Home Secretary is personally going round every Immigration Centre filling in the paperwork and checking their procedures.

 

People should remember that next time they seemingly look for single point of failure and generally slagging off politicians when something goes wrong. What about all the layers and layers of  suits on their six-figure salaries running these organisations. Those long-termers firmly ingrained in the civil service, milking it for all it's worth for a nice lengthy career with a big fat pension at the end   all those Chief Executives, and Directors of (...)  or Executive Somethings we can't nominate select recruit or elect out.

 

At least in the private sector shareholders and investors have some clout and customers can of course vote with their feet and go to a competitor.     In the civil service we are stuck with it irrelevant of how incompetent expensive or negligible.

 

Ministers might decide policy but let's not forget the interpretation, resourcing, implementation and the potential for inevitable screw  ups go through the institution not a single person. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[tinfoilhat 11]

55 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Nobody actually believes that the Health Secretary is going round individually to every trust and hospital negotiating their preferred supplier of bog rolls and cleaning fluid.

 

 

Matt Hancock would have you believe he was doing more than that, he was always claiming he was "saving lives"!!

[tinfoilhat 11]

57 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

People should remember that next time they seemingly look for single point of failure and generally slagging off politicians when something goes wrong. What about all the layers and layers of  suits on their six-figure salaries running these organisations. Those long-termers firmly ingrained in the civil service, milking it for all it's worth for a nice lengthy career with a big fat pension at the end   all those Chief Executives, and Directors of (...)  or Executive Somethings we can't nominate select recruit or elect out.

One of things that's come out of the Afghan debacle (And that's a generous term) is that the current lot arent using experienced civil servants and diplomats just a bunch of spads who have never left Westminster. Given Raabs glassy eyed shambolic committee appearance I'm hoping a clear out of civil servants isn't that thorough or we'll be left with ministers and spads (who are even less accountable) running the show.

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

To be fair, I don't really think it's some wild conspiracy beyond the realms of possibility.  Crookesey makes quite an interesting  point.

 

We have all seen Yes Minister and The Thick of It. Nobody actually believes that the p.m. reads every single line and word of every single letter and memo and policy document and briefing note the passes through his office.

 

Nobody actually believes that the Health Secretary is going round individually to every trust and hospital negotiating their preferred supplier of bog rolls and cleaning fluid.

 

Nobody actually believes that the Home Secretary is personally going round every Immigration Centre filling in the paperwork and checking their procedures.

 

People should remember that next time they seemingly look for single point of failure and generally slagging off politicians when something goes wrong. What about all the layers and layers of  suits on their six-figure salaries running these organisations. Those long-termers firmly ingrained in the civil service, milking it for all it's worth for a nice lengthy career with a big fat pension at the end   all those Chief Executives, and Directors of (...)  or Executive Somethings we can't nominate select recruit or elect out.

 

At least in the private sector shareholders and investors have some clout and customers can of course vote with their feet and go to a competitor.     In the civil service we are stuck with it irrelevant of how incompetent expensive or negligible.

 

Ministers might decide policy but let's not forget the interpretation, resourcing, implementation and the potential for inevitable screw  ups go through the institution not a single person. 

Blummin' eck, I agree with nearly all of this, which has to be a first for me and Econoob.

 

However one must remember that the men in grey suits who interpret the 'orders' and are in a position to empower them live in a different world to the rest of us, and see things very differently from the hoy polloy who are on the receiving end.

They are Oxbridge, Upper and middle class to a man (yes usually) and have probably never even had a conversation with anyone outside their social millieu. They are out of touch with real life to the nth degree. 

 

They rule from gentleman's clubs while awaiting their knighthoods. They are what is known by the woolley term, 'the Establishment.'

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by Anna B

[crookesey 620]

Well Anna, here’s a theory for you to completely dispel as fantasy. Looking back to my circa ten troubled years years of working in Rotherham. One of our clients was Nigel Hague (father of William), talk about a ‘two up two down Tory’, had he not stuffed Conservatism down his son’s throat William could have made a very interesting Labour leader. He could have beaten Blair to the ‘New Labour’ theory, and coming from Rotherham would have been more credible to Labour traditionalists along with the ‘can’t make our minds up’ brigade.

 

Now go for a nice sit down until the steam stops coming out of your ears. 😳

[alchresearch 210]

On 01/09/2021 at 14:27, Longcol said:

Source of this figure please?  6.7 million I can believe - but not the entire UK population.

Quote

The latest PAMCo results show the Guardian is the most read quality news publisher in the UK, with a record 35.6 million adults accessing Guardian journalism across both digital and print formats on average per month.

 

The Guardian is the second most-read online newspaper in the UK, overtaking the Mail (33.6m) for the third time in last four PAMCo releases, and the Mirror (31.7m), with a 46% year-on-year increase to bring the monthly digital readership to 35.2m readers.

Granted there may be a bit of overlap, but its certainly not all Tory controlled like Anna claims.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2020/jun/17/new-data-shows-guardian-is-the-top-quality-and-most-trusted-newspaper-in-the-uk

[Anna B 1,401]

4 hours ago, crookesey said:

Well Anna, here’s a theory for you to completely dispel as fantasy. Looking back to my circa ten troubled years years of working in Rotherham. One of our clients was Nigel Hague (father of William), talk about a ‘two up two down Tory’, had he not stuffed Conservatism down his son’s throat William could have made a very interesting Labour leader. He could have beaten Blair to the ‘New Labour’ theory, and coming from Rotherham would have been more credible to Labour traditionalists along with the ‘can’t make our minds up’ brigade.

 

Now go for a nice sit down until the steam stops coming out of your ears. 😳

No argument from me. Politicians come from many walks of life and have to be voted in (or out) by the public.

 

We were talking about the upper echelons of the civil service: the manipulators, the fixers, the movers and shakers, power behind the thrones. Powerful but unelected and unaccountable men in grey suits who pull the strings of government. 

[Mister Gee 811]

4 hours ago, crookesey said:

Well Anna, here’s a theory for you to completely dispel as fantasy. Looking back to my circa ten troubled years years of working in Rotherham. One of our clients was Nigel Hague (father of William), talk about a ‘two up two down Tory’, had he not stuffed Conservatism down his son’s throat William could have made a very interesting Labour leader. He could have beaten Blair to the ‘New Labour’ theory, and coming from Rotherham would have been more credible to Labour traditionalists along with the ‘can’t make our minds up’ brigade.

 

Now go for a nice sit down until the steam stops coming out of your ears. 😳

Did you work in social services in Rotherham?

[Mister Gee 811]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

If William Hague hadn't had a misspent youth in Rotherham and drank fourteen pints a day there is no doubt he would have been our country's longest serving Tory prime minister.

Trolling at it’s best.

[Longcol 592]

6 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Granted there may be a bit of overlap, but its certainly not all Tory controlled like Anna claims.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2020/jun/17/new-data-shows-guardian-is-the-top-quality-and-most-trusted-newspaper-in-the-uk

Have we got aggregate figures for the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph and Times for comparison?

 

Are these  the same people making return visits to the site - find it difficult to believe 35.6 million different adults visit Grauniad website per month?