The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

I was actually referring to relationships, not behaviour, by my remark, but okay, I take your point. Being without sin and casting the first stone doesn't seem to apply to politicians. There'll be a long queue of camels waiting to try getting through the eye of that needle one day.
[/quote]

So you don’t mind that the people who made the rules flagrantly broke them, knew it and discussed it with each other and continued to laugh at us? And then lie time and again about it.

Hancock kissing an aide was probably at the time against the law. It was certainly against his own social distancing guidance.

I could probably live with them breaking their own rules even the cover up attempts but it’s then the subsequent lying about it. Bang to rights, admit to it and go. That’s what has happened forever. It’s only this lot who think they can continually lie their way out of anything with Trump tactics that really do boil my blood.

[Worthy4England]

You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

I was actually referring to relationships, not behaviour, by my remark, but okay, I take your point. Being without sin and casting the first stone doesn't seem to apply to politicians. There'll be a long queue of camels waiting to try getting through the eye of that needle one day.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone cared too much about his relationship particularly, other than maybe the odd "ewwww" It was really the what he did, where he did it and when he did it after laying out "the rules" for everyone else...it pretty much broke all of them...

That picture comes out in today's non-COVID world, it hardly makes tomorrow's chip paper...

[Worthy4England]

Of far more newsworthy.."Senior Doctors want up to £262 per hour to cover strike. Saving lives is priceless, but does the Hypocratic oath cover billionaire lifestyles? Just wondering.

I’ll bite. The headline figure sounds a lot doesn’t it? It’s been used to try and put the public against doctors. The NHS though has long undervalued its professionals hence why staff are leaving in droves to private roles.

Just think how much it would cost to hire the services of an equivalently experienced and trained accountant or solicitor overnight?

Pay has been eroded in real terms by around 30% since I qualified 11 years ago. Student debt has also increased by about 2.5 times in that time. Colleagues know they can earn far more in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or leaving clinical work altogether. It’s a case of pay doctors a market rate for their skills or watch the NHS crumble.

I think something needs to be done all across the NHS but I also think pay erosion has been pretty universal. TBF if I could whack out £500k per annum working nights, I'd probably be up for that for a few years...

I think in a lot of salaried professions, people are effectively capped at a headline number and if they have to work until 4 in the morning or at weekend, they don't get out of hours rates other than maybe junior grades who aren't anywhere near the headline rate.

So I think the baseline needs adjusting, certainly.

[jimbo]

I agree pay erosion across the whole public sector is universal, and think as a country we hugely undervalue the skill of a wide range of essential public sector workers. I’m not having that private sector employees have had anywhere near the level of real terms pay cuts.

Sticking to NHS staff as that’s my area, A big issue for doctors is that you can earn that money easily elsewhere. Previously loyalty to the NHS would have made a lot of people stay but now heads are being turned as staff aren’t feeling valued, both in terms of working environment and pay. Good will towards employers is falling.
All of a sudden the temptation of higher pay and easier work in the private sector, moving abroad, or leaving medicine altogether becomes overwhelming.
Nurses are doing similar.
The service can’t run without staff.

For context this week Pret increased their barista pay to above that of an F1 junior doctor who will be making life saving decisions and carrying a lot of responsibility.
A neurosurgeon 10 years post qualification doing emergency brain surgery overnight will be on £28 per hour. How much if you needed a plumber overnight?

That’s absolute crap for people who are vital to a healthy functioning society and shows how the government don’t value skills. Same for nurses, teachers, barristers etc etc etc

[Worthy4England]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

[BWFC_Insane]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

Because we’ve underfunded it for the last twelve years. We’ve cut the proportion of GDP we spend on it and other countries who have healthcare provision rising up the international league tables haven’t.

The funding gap is ok for a year. The NHS muddles through. Even a few years. But twelve years? Nah. It’s caught up with us. The same way underfunding across the public sector has.
We’ve seen with covid that there is no choice. We need these services. And when they disbanded PHE and gave Dildo Harding the gig it was an unmitigated disaster. The private sector are not competent to run these services.

[Worthy4England]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

Because we’ve underfunded it for the last twelve years. We’ve cut the proportion of GDP we spend on it and other countries who have healthcare provision rising up the international league tables haven’t.

The funding gap is ok for a year. The NHS muddles through. Even a few years. But twelve years? Nah. It’s caught up with us. The same way underfunding across the public sector has.
We’ve seen with covid that there is no choice. We need these services. And when they disbanded PHE and gave Dildo Harding the gig it was an unmitigated disaster. The private sector are not competent to run these services.

I don't disagree the underfunding is a huge problem...nor did I suggest the NHS should go private. You've mentioned those things, so you can bang your drum.

[BWFC_Insane]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

Because we’ve underfunded it for the last twelve years. We’ve cut the proportion of GDP we spend on it and other countries who have healthcare provision rising up the international league tables haven’t.

The funding gap is ok for a year. The NHS muddles through. Even a few years. But twelve years? Nah. It’s caught up with us. The same way underfunding across the public sector has.
We’ve seen with covid that there is no choice. We need these services. And when they disbanded PHE and gave Dildo Harding the gig it was an unmitigated disaster. The private sector are not competent to run these services.

I don't disagree the underfunding is a huge problem...nor did I suggest the NHS should go private. You've mentioned those things, so you can bang your drum.

It’s not difficult to have a properly working NHS within current taxation models though. The gap in funding needs a short term fix and then we simply have to meet ongoing GDP commitments to healthcare spending.

The problem is not that we can’t afford it. We just aren’t making the correct political choices. Hardly surprising given the absolute weapons we’ve had running the country in this time. You only need to go back to 2010 and the NHS was topping many league tables and performing at its peak. There is an obvious reason for that. Political priority and competent leadership.

[Hoboh]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

Because we’ve underfunded it for the last twelve years. We’ve cut the proportion of GDP we spend on it and other countries who have healthcare provision rising up the international league tables haven’t.

The funding gap is ok for a year. The NHS muddles through. Even a few years. But twelve years? Nah. It’s caught up with us. The same way underfunding across the public sector has.
We’ve seen with covid that there is no choice. We need these services. And when they disbanded PHE and gave Dildo Harding the gig it was an unmitigated disaster. The private sector are not competent to run these services.

I don't disagree the underfunding is a huge problem...nor did I suggest the NHS should go private. You've mentioned those things, so you can bang your drum.

It’s not difficult to have a properly working NHS within current taxation models though. The gap in funding needs a short term fix and then we simply have to meet ongoing GDP commitments to healthcare spending.

The problem is not that we can’t afford it. We just aren’t making the correct political choices. Hardly surprising given the absolute weapons we’ve had running the country in this time. You only need to go back to 2010 and the NHS was topping many league tables and performing at its peak. There is an obvious reason for that. Political priority and competent leadership.

Aye let's go back to the days of the super performing, massively funded NHS and just forget a complete pratt who sent troops into a war that needed basic equipment sent to them by their families because of massive underfunding.
The MOD just like the NHS now is a bottomless bucket of waste!

[BWFC_Insane]

The main point, isn't at all lost Jimbo... What I'd probably say though, is, for reasons you've explained (from private to jobs abroad etc.) it is increasingly difficult to see an "all encompassing" NHS (thinking wider than just consultants/hopsitals) that can do everything at a price that's more acceptable than not to taxpayers. It's already creaking beyond the seams and feels broken in a lot of places...

Because we’ve underfunded it for the last twelve years. We’ve cut the proportion of GDP we spend on it and other countries who have healthcare provision rising up the international league tables haven’t.

The funding gap is ok for a year. The NHS muddles through. Even a few years. But twelve years? Nah. It’s caught up with us. The same way underfunding across the public sector has.
We’ve seen with covid that there is no choice. We need these services. And when they disbanded PHE and gave Dildo Harding the gig it was an unmitigated disaster. The private sector are not competent to run these services.

I don't disagree the underfunding is a huge problem...nor did I suggest the NHS should go private. You've mentioned those things, so you can bang your drum.

It’s not difficult to have a properly working NHS within current taxation models though. The gap in funding needs a short term fix and then we simply have to meet ongoing GDP commitments to healthcare spending.

The problem is not that we can’t afford it. We just aren’t making the correct political choices. Hardly surprising given the absolute weapons we’ve had running the country in this time. You only need to go back to 2010 and the NHS was topping many league tables and performing at its peak. There is an obvious reason for that. Political priority and competent leadership.

Aye let's go back to the days of the super performing, massively funded NHS and just forget a complete pratt who sent troops into a war that needed basic equipment sent to them by their families because of massive underfunding.
The MOD just like the NHS now is a bottomless bucket of waste!

Not really sure what that has to do with the point I’m making. The Tories have destroyed the NHS and the reality is they haven’t done so because we can’t afford one but because they have made appalling choices.

We don’t need to go back very far to see when the NHS was world leading.

I know that if you want to have an NHS like that again, you can. But not with this lot. Perhaps not even with the current opposition. But the reality is that it’s very doable. We just need the political will and right decisions. We’ve had thirteen years of appalling ones.

[TANGODANCER]

You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

I was actually referring to relationships, not behaviour, by my remark, but okay, I take your point. Being without sin and casting the first stone doesn't seem to apply to politicians. There'll be a long queue of camels waiting to try getting through the eye of that needle one day.

So you don’t mind that the people who made the rules flagrantly broke them, knew it .
[/quote]

Where exactly did I say, even indicate that? Please stop putting words in people's mouths"and like Worthy says", banging your own drum. My views on politicians are based on a lifetime of hearing personal views aired as solutions to running a country. So far, little has worked re-progress.If there was ever a time for a coalition government bent on working together to make Britain work, surely that time is now?

[BWFC_Insane]

On another note shouldn’t all these people who discussed government business in WhatsApp be dismissed?

WhatsApp is banned for anywhere I’ve worked for such conversations. For a whole host of reasons.

I can’t believe government and civil service it security permits it either.

[Worthy4England]

On another note shouldn’t all these people who discussed government business in WhatsApp be dismissed?

WhatsApp is banned for anywhere I’ve worked for such conversations. For a whole host of reasons.

I can’t believe government and civil service it security permits it either.

They shouldn't be dismissed for using WhatsApp - and almost certainly won't be dismissed for using WhatsApp. Nor do I see any realistic possibility of monitoring nor enforcing such a policy and even if you made one, there's no mechanism for preventing two people talking in a park about the contents that you used WhatsApp for, to achieve the same ends. The notion that any government is fully on the record with every utterance an MP makes isn't going to happen, ever.

There might be wider questions - not directly nor specifically to do with WhatsApp as to whether there's been any sort of policy breach in relation what specifically was posted on WhatsApp and whether it contravened any systems usage, data retention policies etc. (Like when Bravaman was sending shit over her private e-mail address. It's the what that's important...

[BWFC_Insane]

On another note shouldn’t all these people who discussed government business in WhatsApp be dismissed?

WhatsApp is banned for anywhere I’ve worked for such conversations. For a whole host of reasons.

I can’t believe government and civil service it security permits it either.

They shouldn't be dismissed for using WhatsApp - and almost certainly won't be dismissed for using WhatsApp. Nor do I see any realistic possibility of monitoring nor enforcing such a policy and even if you made one, there's no mechanism for preventing two people talking in a park about the contents that you used WhatsApp for, to achieve the same ends. The notion that any government is fully on the record with every utterance an MP makes isn't going to happen, ever.

There might be wider questions - not directly nor specifically to do with WhatsApp as to whether there's been any sort of policy breach in relation what specifically was posted on WhatsApp and whether it contravened any systems usage, data retention policies etc. (Like when Bravaman was sending shit over her private e-mail address. It's the what that's important...

There are a multitude of reasons to not use WhatsApp to conduct business. Risk of leaks (indeed). No retention control. Personal device risk. Complete lack of control over future meta changes that potentially leave data at risk. Lack of transparency and monitoring.

I don’t know any credible organisation that would consider discussing business sensitive information on WhatsApp for these reasons. It would be banned explicitly. And if something like this happened there would be disciplinary action taken.

There are infinitely better options for such communications that are used by I mean every business going. And do not have the same issues WhatsApp has.

[Worthy4England]

You asked whether everyone who had used WhatsApp should be dismissed - I still think that's unlikely against current policies that applied to Ministers or CabO, and your follow-up post doesn't change that view. There are numerous reports on the broader issues from ICO to parliament - the lastest of which I think was middle of last year.

Likely, most businesses use WhatsApp - whether they sanction it or not. The problem is, they don't actually know how much they use it, as it's in unsanctioned space and they only ever actually find out if some sort of incident occurs...

[BWFC_Insane]

You asked whether everyone who had used WhatsApp should be dismissed - I still think that's unlikely against current policies that applied to Ministers or CabO, and your follow-up post doesn't change that view. There are numerous reports on the broader issues from ICO to parliament - the lastest of which I think was middle of last year.

Likely, most businesses use WhatsApp - whether they sanction it or not. The problem is, they don't actually know how much they use it, as it's in unsanctioned space and they only ever actually find out if some sort of incident occurs...

If there was a leak akin to the conversations we've seen from anywhere I've worked showing business sensitive communications shared on whatsapp then I'd expect people to be sacked. Would you not?

The fact is that this leak shows it was used entirely inappropriately. Unless they allow it - which of course, they should not.

There is no way those conversations are in the bounds of things that are ok to be on whatsapp unless it is officially supported.

[Worthy4England]

You asked whether everyone who had used WhatsApp should be dismissed - I still think that's unlikely against current policies that applied to Ministers or CabO, and your follow-up post doesn't change that view. There are numerous reports on the broader issues from ICO to parliament - the lastest of which I think was middle of last year.

Likely, most businesses use WhatsApp - whether they sanction it or not. The problem is, they don't actually know how much they use it, as it's in unsanctioned space and they only ever actually find out if some sort of incident occurs...

If there was a leak akin to the conversations we've seen from anywhere I've worked showing business sensitive communications shared on whatsapp then I'd expect people to be sacked. Would you not?

The fact is that this leak shows it was used entirely inappropriately. Unless they allow it - which of course, they should not.

There is no way those conversations are in the bounds of things that are ok to be on whatsapp unless it is officially supported.

Yes - but in most senses that would be like comparing the proverbial apple and an orange. Politicians are allowed to discuss political issues in a political context and you'd probably rather they did. If they want to use WhatsApp to do that and hand it over to journo's - their call. Which specific thing do you think is a government asset warranting some form of protection? (I've certainly not read them all)

[BWFC_Insane]

You asked whether everyone who had used WhatsApp should be dismissed - I still think that's unlikely against current policies that applied to Ministers or CabO, and your follow-up post doesn't change that view. There are numerous reports on the broader issues from ICO to parliament - the lastest of which I think was middle of last year.

Likely, most businesses use WhatsApp - whether they sanction it or not. The problem is, they don't actually know how much they use it, as it's in unsanctioned space and they only ever actually find out if some sort of incident occurs...

If there was a leak akin to the conversations we've seen from anywhere I've worked showing business sensitive communications shared on whatsapp then I'd expect people to be sacked. Would you not?

The fact is that this leak shows it was used entirely inappropriately. Unless they allow it - which of course, they should not.

There is no way those conversations are in the bounds of things that are ok to be on whatsapp unless it is officially supported.

Yes - but in most senses that would be like comparing the proverbial apple and an orange. Politicians are allowed to discuss political issues in a political context and you'd probably rather they did. If they want to use WhatsApp to do that and hand it over to journo's - their call. Which specific thing do you think is a government asset warranting some form of protection? (I've certainly not read them all)

This isn’t political stuff. It’s government business. We aren’t talking an MP and his office staff. This is central uk government at the highest levels.

Would you expect to be in a job if WhatsApp messages full of business sensitive information were leaked or discovered?

As for the contents they were using WhatsApp to discuss a new strain of covid that hadn’t even been publically revealed. They were discussing key operational decisions and reasoning behind them on WhatsApp.

These are the people who run the country. And we are talking about the business of running the country.

If an NHS trust was found to be doing that all these government ministers would be calling for heads to roll.

[Prufrock]

WhatsApp is "banned" in most departments. But I'm not sure if it is in cabinet office, and can at least see why it might not be. But don't know. Simon Case does not come across well.

And WhatsApp for the politicians is pretty much standard I think.

[Worthy4England]

Please God stop asking me if I'd expect to be fired using WhatsApp, because it's not really relevant.

You are expressing opinions that (strange though it may seem) are not supported by much other than your opinion. I'll qualify this and hopefully move you away from your fixation with WhatsApp. There is nothing anywhere legally to prevent the Government using WhatsApp. Whether I find that bizarre or not isn't relevant. In fact they have a policy around the use of WhatsApp which broadly says they should only use it for "inconsequential shit" - my paraphrase. So can they use it - yes - legally and in policy (unless anyone comes up with a reason that results in a judgement saying it's illegal).

The Good Law Project took Johnson to court over some lost e-mails last year - which I think were in Whatsapp and they'd applied "autodelete" to. As part of the judgement, the Court and the Court of Appeal both ruled that the Government were not obliged legally to follow what are effectively their own administrative policies (maybe Pru has a better view on this GLP v PM Dec 22). This is the view from GLP, not me. This is currently heading to Supreme Court.

Back in July, the ICO reported on the use of messaging apps including WhatsApp in the course of managing the COVID crisis it issued a reprimand to DHSC but not specifically for using WhatsApp, but around its ability to keep records and some likely breaches of GDPR using private messaging apps.

To the leak itself. There could be legal action I guess against individuals, but I think it would by necessity need to be specific rather than general and on topics like whether a specific message(s) breached (for example) GDPR, the Official Secrets Act or other specific legislation rather than policy.

What your left with outside of legal recourse, is whether they would (bearing in mind as with any organisation, they're not bound to) discipline people for breaching their policies. They'll struggle to do a blanket "firing" just for using the app as they have a policy acknowledging its use. Whether they want to in a wider sense is their call Also insofar as it relates to Hancock, you can't "sack" an MP in the same conventional sense...

So me owd mucker, if you want to tell us very specifically what you're going to have them all sacked for, fire away.