OT- Cabinet Reshuffle Kerfuffle

[Andy_Faber]

...and there is the root of the problem. You can ‘reshuffle’ as much as you like but if those that are reshuffled lack the knowledge, expertise and integrity required then what’s the point?

Now that's an interesting observation because You haven't shared my view from much earlier posts, and repeated just above, that

'........And in my usual anti-PC way I'll state that it won't get any better if she picks people based on gender and ethnicity rather than ability'.

Now you APPEAR to be agreeing - or are you cherry-picking, its OK to get rid of quotas which favour obnoxious, quail-egg-quoffing toffs (who somewhere in the mix might have some acquired and relevant skills), but not to get rid of quotas which favour folk on gender or ethnicity grounds over and above knowledge and/or talent? Not trying to cause a spat, its you I'm asking not Comrade S, but I'd love to understand where the line's drawn.

[roger_ramjet]

I think it boils down to the fact that, where no-one has any relevant skills, you might as well pick the incompetent female/ethnic/disabled candidate rather than the equally incompetent white middle class male and thus get some credibility by appearing to be "fair".

it equally pisses me off that affirmative action allows the less competent to rise above the competent based purely on their gender/race/orientation/disability status (which may explain the rise of Dianne Abbott) but I think that is a burden that we will carry for years, following (and as a penalty for) many years of institutionally overlooking perfectly capable candidates from outside the elite comfort group.

The sins of the fathers are vested on the sons.... or should I say the sins of the non gender specific parental figure who may or may not be a conception parent are vested on the offspring thereof be that natural or adoptive regardless of ***ual orientation or disability status?

[Manofpride]

the ‘man’ is devoid of integrity and credibility. The most self centred and dangerous individual in the country and probably the only politician I can think of who actually makes Hunt, May, Gove and Co. look capable...well, almost.

Now who's being a WUM!

[AdiSalisbury]

or should I say the sins of the non gender specific parental figure who may or may not be a conception parent are vested on the offspring thereof be that natural or adoptive regardless of ***ual orientation or disability status?

Very good

[mistaram]

ramAnag got to agree with you its hard to make any of this lot look capable Whatever your political alliances are there's usually a couple of ministers you can respect But today its bloody hard to think of one Must admit I did admire Justne Greening can from a comprehensive school in Rotherham went uni work bloody hard to become a top accountant at PW They threw her in the deep end at the Ministry for transport she took all the flack for Bombardier when it quitened down McLaughlin took over She's much better of away from this lot

[Andy_Faber]

I think it boils down to the fact that, where no-one has any relevant skills, you might as well pick the incompetent female/ethnic/disabled candidate rather than the equally incompetent white middle class male and thus get some credibility by appearing to be "fair".

it equally pisses me off that affirmative action allows the less competent to rise above the competent based purely on their gender/race/orientation/disability status (which may explain the rise of Dianne Abbott) but I think that is a burden that we will carry for years, following (and as a penalty for) many years of institutionally overlooking perfectly capable candidates from outside the elite comfort group.

The sins of the fathers are vested on the sons.... or should I say the sins of the non gender specific parental figure who may or may not be a conception parent are vested on the offspring thereof be that natural or adoptive regardless of ***ual orientation or disability status?

I could have written that myself. Thank God I'm not fettered with the need to think about such cack when making recruitment decisions.

[BaaLocks]

I think it boils down to the fact that, where no-one has any relevant skills, you might as well pick the incompetent female/ethnic/disabled candidate rather than the equally incompetent white middle class male and thus get some credibility by appearing to be "fair".

it equally pisses me off that affirmative action allows the less competent to rise above the competent based purely on their gender/race/orientation/disability status (which may explain the rise of Dianne Abbott) but I think that is a burden that we will carry for years, following (and as a penalty for) many years of institutionally overlooking perfectly capable candidates from outside the elite comfort group.

The sins of the fathers are vested on the sons.... or should I say the sins of the non gender specific parental figure who may or may not be a conception parent are vested on the offspring thereof be that natural or adoptive regardless of ***ual orientation or disability status?

May surprise you RR but I agree with most of that. I work for a company that lauds it's intent to increase the percentage of female senior leaders and has a dedicated diversity team. Should my personal incompetence ever get noticed and I be exited from the organisation I wonder how strong a discrimination case I might have as a male, pale and stale employee. You're also right that it is a legacy of old boys networks that we are now paying for but when we are told we should 'hire the woman' the world (or rather my small part of it) has gone off in the wrong direction.

The bit I don't agree with you on is Diane Abbott, and for the reasons you, yourself outline. You may have a view of her as a politician - with or without racing blood sugar levels - but you simply cannot deny that we wouldn't be in this mess had more people like her had the cohones (with apologies to Rat's - or whichever persona he is playing these days - swear filter) to push down barriers in front of her. Take a read of this if you feel my praise is unworthy.

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017...licit-content/

[Romanis]

I have to disagree with the bit on appointing a former soldier as Defense Minister. Of course you would want someone with the necessary skills to deal with Health, Education, Finance etc but I would caution against appointing former military men especially top grade officers to head the Defense Ministry.
Because with these military men you usually end up with the military industrial complex. Buy, buy, buy, strengthen, strengthen, strengthen.
Someone who served as Minister, good idea but a lifelong careerist, I'd say no. We should keep the military out of politics as far as possible. I mean when did we last have a general officer as Minister?
In India, I got a chance once to attend a talk by some military officers an they were very fine with the idea of separation and have civilian control of their forces.

[ramAnag]

Now that's an interesting observation because You haven't shared my view from much earlier posts, and repeated just above, that

'........And in my usual anti-PC way I'll state that it won't get any better if she picks people based on gender and ethnicity rather than ability'.

Now you APPEAR to be agreeing - or are you cherry-picking, its OK to get rid of quotas which favour obnoxious, quail-egg-quoffing toffs (who somewhere in the mix might have some acquired and relevant skills), but not to get rid of quotas which favour folk on gender or ethnicity grounds over and above knowledge and/or talent? Not trying to cause a spat, its you I'm asking not Comrade S, but I'd love to understand where the line's drawn.

Not sure you’re querying the right person Andy. I don’t recall ever defending politically correct appointments on the basis of gender or ethnicity and I do believe that people should be appointed according to ability and talent alone.
Having said that the predominantly ‘pale males’ who have governed us for ever and a day seem to have landed us in the mess we’re undoubtedly in but then the only two female PMs we’ve had have been amongst the very worst imo.
My take is...to paraphrase Leonard Cohen...’everybody knows that the dice are loaded’... in favour of the affluent, ‘that the boat is leaking and the captain’s lied’.
If society - by which I suppose I mean the well being of everyone - is to improve something has to change and I agree with MA that we need leadership by those who are properly equipped.
Taking my own area of relative expertise - Education - in the last eight years there have been four Education Secretaries all with their different agendas beyond the general Tory one of providing an Education Service on the cheap. Not one of those given responsibility for Education has any sort of background in that particular area. I think their specialist subjects have respectively been English, Law, Accounting and whatever the new bloke’s is. How can that work and if, as I imagine it is, this situation is replicated in all the other Departments then it is surely no wonder we are in the state we’re in.

[roger_ramjet]

An accountant in charge of egducashun? You could ask for nuffin better - but a teacher in charge of the Treasury: ah now that is a recipe for a disaster!