First of all we had the Financial Services Authority fail to regulate the banks leading to the 2008 crash.
And the MPs' expenses scandal .
And the West Coast Rail fiasco where the Dept of Transport cannot do sums.
And the NHS kills thousands and keeps schtum and no-one is held responible.
And the Food Standards Agency lets horse get into the human food chain and knows nothing until the Irish FSA tell them.
And the NHS kills thousands...
And now the Financial Services Authority admits it knew all about the Libor rigging scandal which made the banks $billions.. and did nothing.
"The Financial Services Authority has admitted there was widespread knowledge of Libor-rigging among its employees years before it launched an investigation in 2010, but denies "major regulatory failure".
tinyurl.com/a9mm8ez
The clear signs of abject decay?
|
"The Financial Services Authority has admitted there was widespread knowledge of Libor-rigging among its employees years before it launched an investigation in 2010, but denies "major regulatory failure".
A bit like Jimmy Savile then. There's always been a lot of it about, this sudden discovery of scandals that everybody knew about.
In the 90s the Competition Commission had a go at price fixing on white goods. It had been blindingly obvious to anybody paying attention that it had gone on for years. Those in the sector all knew who did it and how, and but "strenuously" denied it existed.
www.independent.co.uk/news/plug-pulled-on-electrical-goods-pricefixing-1281366.html
|
>>The clear signs of abject decay?<<
Yes and it is very depressing. The state just doesnt feel it needs to account for its behaviour until it gets found out.
Worse perhaps is that we tend to roll over and accept it when they tell us that in the main things work well ( or stop scrutinising us as it is also known ).
As a nation we dont get angry enough at the establishment so we get what we deserve really.
|
|
Thats ok, all the whingers, whiners, moaners, and the"its all going to rat sheet in a handcart" soothsayers on here more than make up for the rest of the nation.
|
|
You do your best, thats true enough.
|
>>The state just doesnt feel it needs to account for its behaviour until it gets found out
The "state" does what it needs to do to avoid the tabloids and stay elected.
>>As a nation we dont get angry enough at the establishment
What's the point of "angry"? Just vote intelligently for the politician promising to do what you wish, and stop voting for them when they don't.
Sadly all the "state" and the parties which make it up, have to do is find a few trendy issues which appeals to their target audience and ignore the reality of the rest.
|
>> >>Just vote intelligently for the politician promising to do what
>> you wish,
>>
Really.
I see a new scandal breaking here. Shocking news that politicians have been promising things for years but then reneging once they have got elected.
Apparently this has been going on for years. Everybody knew about it, but no one wants to do anything.
|
Politicians are, by and large, not stupid. And what they want to be, more than anything else in the world, is a politician.
You can get fired for calling a copper a Pleb because the media and the electorate don't like that.
You can get voted out because you claimed expenses that the electorate and the media don't approve of, even though you stayed within the rules. (ignoring the ones who did break the rules).
But you don't lose the next electorate for simply failing to deliver. You don;t lose an election for not living up to your promises. Or at least not a national election, although it might hurt you in a local one.
So they focus on what will get them re-elected. This is not their fault, this is ours.
And each party putting only one candidate forward doesn't help. You then have to choose between a party and a politician you may not approve of.
|
>>What's the point of "angry"? Just vote intelligently for the politician promising to do what you wish, and stop voting for them when they don't.<<
Personally I think a decent human being should be angry about Mid Staffs.
Im fairly certain that nobody thought when they voted Labour that they voted for what happened there and I doubt the Labour Party thought they were presiding over that either.
A change of government makes little difference if they are not aware of the problem with an army of penpushers are more interested in covering up their failings than making things better.
Politics is only one tool and it is often an ineffective tool, the three main parties are far happier being part of the establishment than holding it to account.
|
>>Personally I think a decent human being should be angry about Mid Staffs.
Well, perhaps in your world that counts for something. Personally I would have thought it would have been better to do something about it rather than simply dance around in outrage.
>> the three main parties are far happier being part of the establishment than holding it to account.
Of course they are. But don't naively think its just those three parties. Its *ANY* party that is included, in any system in the world.
In the same way that any party which is not included wants it to change.
It is self-interest, nothing more nor less.
You will never get what you want, simply because any party which becomes part of the establishment will support the perpetuation of that establishment. Trendy controversy is all well and good when you;re on the outside, but as soon as you're on the inside you simply play the game.
|
>>Well, perhaps in your world that counts for something. Personally I would have thought it would have been better to do something about it rather than simply dance around in outrage.<<
In my world you can be angry AND do something about it, it is not a case of either or.
>>You will never get what you want, simply because any party which becomes part of the establishment will support the perpetuation of that establishment. Trendy controversy is all well and good when you;re on the outside, but as soon as you're on the inside you simply play the game.<<
Positive chap arent you? If what you say is true, I can vote UKIP in the knowledge that it doesnt matter and as a bonus I get to see David Cameron looking miserable :-)
|
>> Im fairly certain that nobody thought when they voted Labour that they voted for what
>> happened there and I doubt the Labour Party thought they were presiding over that either.
>>
Mid Staffs happened on Labour's watch but because they'd adopted the same targets and bullying culture as the Tories. Would have been just same if Hague/IDS/Howard and Cameron had been PMs.
|
>>Mid Staffs happened on Labour's watch but because they'd adopted the same targets and bullying culture as the Tories. Would have been just same if Hague/IDS/Howard and Cameron had been PMs.<<
Labour think up their own policies, copying isnt compulsary, although you might want to tell the heir to Blair that.
I dont disagree that it would have been no different, politicians are very detached from the consequences of their actions no matter what party is in power and the PPE grads that we now have running the place havent even been out in the real world so the odds are it wont improve.
|
>Mid Staffs happened on Labour's watch but because they'd adopted the same targets and
>bullying culture as the Tories.
For Glub's sake Bromp.
When are you lefties going to stop trying to spin Labour's clueless incompetence trying to claim that they were only following Tory instructions. Who was in Govt?
It's getting tired and no-one believes it any more.
Last edited by: Kevin on Tue 5 Mar 13 at 21:18
|
>> For Glub's sake Bromp.
>>
>> When are you lefties going to stop trying to spin Labour's clueless incompetence trying to
>> claim that they were only following Tory instructions. Who was in Govt?
Labour were in Govt . The underlying question is would it have been different under another party?.
I submit not. It was a symptom of the free market target driven culture that is the new 'consensus politics'
|
>>It was a symptom of the free market target driven culture that is the new 'consensus politics'<<
The consensus under Labour was to throw cash at everything - there isnt anything conservative about that. The target culture was to give the Labour Party good headlines, nothing more.
|
>> >>It was a symptom of the free market target driven culture that is the new
>> 'consensus politics'<<
>>
>> The consensus under Labour was to throw cash at everything - there isnt anything conservative
>> about that. The target culture was to give the Labour Party good headlines, nothing more.
>
Whatever
|
>The underlying question is would it have been different under another party?.
Totally irrelevant. It was on Labour's watch.
No. The question is why you can't accept responsibility and persist in trying to blame all of Labour's cock-ups on the Tories.
|
>> >The underlying question is would it have been different under another party?.
>>
>> Totally irrelevant. It was on Labour's watch.
Not irrelevant. There was a political consensus. Same way post war consensus allowed incompetent complacent management to kill a generation of industry.
|
>Not irrelevant. There was a political consensus.
If it was a consensus why do you take every opportunity to try and shift the blame onto the Tories?
>Same way post war consensus allowed incompetent complacent management to kill a generation of industry.
That's another thread.
|
>> The "state" does what it needs to do to avoid the tabloids and stay elected.
I don't suppose you confuse the state with the government of the day FMR, but that quote makes it look as if you do.
The state is more or less permanent, rather monstrous, essentially cold and pitiless. Governments are ephemeral and subject to human failings.
|
"You really have no idea how Government works :-) "
Quote madf to PhilW after PhilW's rant about Stafford/Nicholson the other day!! (And yes, I did get the irony!!)
;-)
But, madf, you are right - I almost had another rant about Nicholson after reading account in The Independent of what he said to the Health Select Committee
tinyurl.com/adkkqjr
Same sort of thing in Telegraph and (didn't have time to read it) front page of Times said 30,000 unnecessary deaths(?) per year in UK hospitals.
Comments under articles were almost exclusively saying that Nicholson should be sacked (not allowed to resign with pension benefits etc) yet various politicians are backing him.
You're right, I have "no idea how Government works :-) "
And, what's worse, what could I do to change it?
P
|
The sad facts are that if you look at the NHS example it is clear that patients are secondary to management in terms of priorities.
As far as the Financial Services Authority is concerned it was clear to a blind man's dog that they were incompetent - and that was clear by mid 2001-3..
And the Food Standards Agency followed on from MAF and the Dept of Ag as being - well - a bunch of wasters.. See the last outbreak of F&M caused by.. MAF tinyurl.com/agebug6
Also see the lies told about WMD and the man responsible was - promoted (Scarlett).
Now 50 years ago, we would have learned very little of all of this. Secrecy and the Press would have ensured that D notices worked.
But today with the internet..
But the UK Civil Service acts as if the electorate will not know of their cock ups and politicians seem to encourage that view.. (see their lying and vacillation on publishing expenses).
I suspect a change of culture is needed.
|
Another peculiarly British failure. - Manatee
