Comments on: Murder of Alexander Litvinenko

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Sun, 27 May 2007 15:59:15 +0000

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”Henry Louis Mencken

Al Quaida & global warming have been 2 very feeble looking hobgoblins. It will be such a pleasure for so many people in power to get the Russians back again.

As an alleged plot this makes absolutely no sense, though as an accident involving various Berezovski employees being careless with PO they were planning to use it makes a lot. The Russians have said they are willing to put him on trial if Britain has the evidence. If they have a real case the very least they can do is to take them at their word. Of course if it is purely propaganda on the UK’s part then that would become obvious too.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Ed W

Ed W — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:01:45 +0000

“Most of them are people that left their £25-30k a year jobs during the big spending round so they could sell themselves back as ‘consultants’, doing the same job they quit,”

This sort of dimmness isn’t, unfortunately, confined to public services. IBM and ‘certain’ banks do it regularly. The period is plus/minus five years between cycles of being taken on full time and getting the elbow (temporarily) with a nice retrenchment package. Then, after a month or so, they notice that there’s no-one doing your job and, much as it grieves them, they still need the work done. However, the reason they can’t just (as any sane person would) offer you your job back is because you aren’t in the salary budget and getting a mandate to alter a budget (in a large company) can take months. So they bring you on as a consultant which comes out of the operational budget which is usually padded because everyone knows the directors are psychotic.

When you come back (as a consultant) your effective hourly rate is about twice what it was as an employee and there’s much more opportunity for tax deductions. Subsequently, when you get taken back on board as a permanent employee, which usually happens after about 18 months, you may take a ten to twenty percent knock on the salary until the next big kick out. However, any salary knock is more than offset by the inevitable redundancy payment. Then you take a six week cruise and wait for a call.

I’ve been through three of these cycles now and refer to it in correspondence as ‘The Dilbert bonus’.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Ed W

Ed W — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:43:04 +0000

What really hacks me off is that the Conservatives (allegedly) need more than 60% of the popular vote (in terms of head count) to win the same number of seats as Labour in Parliament. That’s bloody outrageous!

The reason for this (again allegedly) is because Conservative controlled boroughs are generally preferred by the general population (because they are better run etc) so people migrate into them. Because the electoral boundaries don’t change particularly dynamically the net effect of this is that Labour need far fewer votes to win a parliamentary majority then the Tories.

So, Steven, the principle they have adopted, it would appear, is to f**k up the boroughs they control using the techniques you have mentioned so they have the modern equivalent of rotten boroughs. Thus they are enabled to win a general election outright with about 360 votes cast in their favour. Oooooh, but they’re cunning!

Or something beginning with ‘C.U.N.’

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:47:32 +0000

PS: Perhaps I should get round to joining the forum for some of these issues, and get this thread back to Sunday Night at the London Polonium.

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:44:26 +0000

I have encountered the kind of parasite you describe in the past Steve. Since NuLab is on the retreat down here in the deep south, we probably get much less of this sinecure culture, and I imagine it varies borough to borough. I guess that I just like the idea of starting at the top and working down if we are going to clear up this mess. Judging by their recent performance in the Gulf I’m not too sure that the RN is a sound investment. PFI deals give us ‘something to show for it’, it’s the future costs that bother me, and the fact that they conveniently don’t appear on Gorgon Broon’s books.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steven_L

Steven_L — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:56:51 +0000

< ‘Steve_L … suggest you read Private Eye for accurate details on the amounts paid to the likes of Arthur Andersen and consultants … I do believe that you may well have a strong case when we get off the ground and some way up the ladder.’ (AP)<

I do read Private Eye, and yes, it does appear to highlight all sorts of waste, nepotism and perhaps even dishonesty in the upper echlons of government. What you’ve got to remember is that it all adds up. For every £million wasted on ‘Crapita’ projects, there’s at least another twenty pointless £50k a year consultants ‘on the ground’. Most of them are people that left their £25-30k a year jobs during the big spending round so they could sell themselves back as ‘consultants’, doing the same job they quit, for twice the amount. Managers love it, they’re not unionised, don’t swan around on flexitime and work life balance, and can actually be made to do some work.

I’m not talking about teachers, I don’t think anyone has it in for teachers. However your local authority is more than likely paying people at least £25k a year to try and persude you to buy Fairtrade coffee. This sort of thing is just stupid waste, I’d rather sack them all and spend the money on the Royal Navy instead. Hence I prefer the Bush model to the Blair/Brown model of borrow and spend. At least we end up with something to show for it.

Of course I’d rather we just didn’t borrow, tax and spend so much in the first place.

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:12:09 +0000

Steve_L … suggest you read Private Eye for accurate details on the amounts paid to the likes of Arthur Andersen and consultants. In the end (‘After Deschooling. What?’) Illich admitted that teachers were too easy and convenient a target, I suspect the same is true of many of those you’re castigating, though I do believe that you may well have a strong case when we get off the ground and some way up the ladder.

Without advocating either, I don’t think that the Soviet Union could be accurately described as ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. Different left-wing groups have different ways of describing it (well, they would, wouldn’t they). The notion of ‘state capitalist’ is about the only bit of SWP dogma that I can even tolerate, Militant go for ‘defunct Napoleonic etc etc’ … I’m afraid you’d have to ask them for the rest. I’ve no idea how groups such as CPGB viewed it, but since they seem to consider Tehran bus drivers the ‘vanguard of the working class’ in some Marxist sense, there would seem little point in talking to them unless you like sitting next to the nutter on the bus.

Sausage: I’ve no disagreement with what you say about NuLab under Bliar, but isn’t this the very thing that the old Tories were accused of, jobs for the boys, usually via the Masonic Hall, and the old school network? Don’t Boris and Co. have to demonstrate that that is no longer the case with the Conservative Party?

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steven_L

Steven_L — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:51:11 +0000

< ‘The NuLab public employees are a minor expenditure and may fulfil a useful function when contrasted to the amount paid to bean-counters and consultants.’ (Agent Provocateur)<

In my experience that’s simple not true. Most public sector departments have an accountant, and once year they have an external audit, nothing wrong with this. From what I’ve seen, when Brown is splashing the cash, hoardes of public workers with a few years experience jump ship, and set themselves up as consultants, thus sell themselves back to their employer (i.e. the taxpayer) at twice their original cost. This suits lazy bureaucrat types, who can rely on the ‘consultants’ to do all the work for them whilst they sit back and relax in meetings about new initiatives, government reviews or joint working and the like.

Without the mass spending overdrive the consultants wouldn’t exist. Without the masses of lazy bureaucrats that are only too happy to dish out £30 or more an hour to have their job done for them the consultants would not exist. Beancounters (or accountants) will always exist, someone has to count the money.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Sausage

Sausage — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:48:45 +0000

“Statistically there was little difference between the old Soviets and US/UK capitalism. In Soviet Russia 10% of the population were party members and controlled 90% of the wealth, in the capitalist west 10% of the population owned 90% of the wealth.”

Yeah, Socialism = Capitalism at root. All that changes is the form the currency takes. In Socialist terms it’s governmental influence and party seniority in Capitalist terms it’s money. If you’re on the ground floor like us it’s probably hard to tell the practical difference between the two ideologies. There’s always some fat cat with 90% of the cream in both systems so who gives a rats ass which one is best.

The main reason I don’t like socialism is because it only works in a valid meritocracy rather than one in which brown-nosing c**ksuckers get promoted to senior party positions who then promote all their friends and relatives

Oh! Just like the Labour Party!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Agent Provocateur

Agent Provocateur — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:02:53 +0000

Chomsky predicted the propaganda shift from Soviet and Chinese communism to jihadic Islamism way before 9/11. I think you’ll find it on the ‘Propaganda and the Control of the Public Mind’ CD. It’s very Orwellian and probably valid. The NuLab public employees are a minor expenditure and may fulfil a useful function when contrasted to the amount paid to bean-counters and consultants.

I’m with EdW on the illegal detention and transport issues. How can we object when our citizens are treated in like manner if we go along with this?

Statistically there was little difference between the old Soviets and US/UK capitalism. In Soviet Russia 10% of the population were party members and controlled 90% of the wealth, in the capitalist west 10% of the population owned 90% of the wealth.

Since it was obviously intended to leave a trail, it’s a shame that MI6 doesn’t have a James Bond to send in to even the score. Perhaps worth remembering that Litvinenko was regarded as a traitor by Russian security, not that that excuses, but it perhaps explains why such an obvious trail was left and the deliberate horror of the assassination.

I would suggest that if you wish to win an election it is somewhat premature to talk about tax cuts. Save the tax cuts until you can demonstrate improved services for less cost. Did you notice how delighted Ed Balls was when Redwood last talked of tax cuts?

Rate This: 0 0