Jeremy Clarkson -wtf
- Thread starter charles.y
- Start date
juliany27
New member
I have a terrible feeling that this country is really run by senior Civil Servants; the Sir Humphrey Appleby's of this world. Unaware of the effect of their decisions on the lives of ordinary people, insulated from the public by layers of administration, and without any risk or personal responsibility for the consequences of the advice and/or decisions they foist upon their political masters.ORIGINAL: tscaptain
I do love this concept that GB, or any PM for that matter, "runs the country", like there's nobody else involved. I doubt even Mugabe would make that claim[]
Time alone will see this - perhaps the current House of Commons enquiry will force a declaration of some sense of responsibility for the current financial debacle from the FSA, the financial regulators, but, as we know, the buck stops, or rather should stop, at the desk of the senior politician who appointed the regulators - for example, the former occupant of Number 11.
ORIGINAL: tscaptain
I do love this concept that GB, or any PM for that matter, "runs the country", like there's nobody else involved. I doubt even Mugabe would make that claim[
Mugabe couldn't run a bath. GB on the other hand is the single most influencial individual in the running of the country (unless it is Humphrey Applebey) and for the previous 11 years was the second most influencial individual in the running of the country. I say he's squarely fair game.
Maybe so but the point here is Mugabe has been in power for 29 years and even now clings to it. At least we have the ability to change our leadership every 5 years. I also wonder, with the benefit of hindsight, what would be done differently by those in government around the world to prevent the global financial meltdown? More regulation of financial institutions? Then the cries of "meddling" and "nanny state" would have been ringing out. Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Of course GB is fair game. He's the obvious target but it is also interesting to see all of the CEO's of the major banks yesterday making public, if not heartfelt, apologies for getting us into this mess. The poor dears have even agreed to forego their millions in "bonuses".
Governments and leaders around the world certainly have to shoulder a lot of the blame here but if we want to live in a free economy/democratic world with the institutions driven by greed rather than common sense, then we've just found out the price we have to pay when it all goes wrong. Still, look on the bright side, at least the next Tory government won't have any national assets left to sell off to the private sector.[] Oh, forgot the NHS......!
Governments and leaders around the world certainly have to shoulder a lot of the blame here but if we want to live in a free economy/democratic world with the institutions driven by greed rather than common sense, then we've just found out the price we have to pay when it all goes wrong. Still, look on the bright side, at least the next Tory government won't have any national assets left to sell off to the private sector.[
] Oh, forgot the NHS......!
Last time I checked we still have a constitutional monarchy so we elect a party and they choose the leader for us - for better or worse! [] Now if you want to get rid of the Royals we can have a republic and elect a president to lead us.......[&:] Then we could be just like the US of A........[:'(]
] Now if you want to get rid of the Royals we can have a republic and elect a president to lead us.......[&:] Then we could be just like the US of A........[:'(]
juliany27
New member
ORIGINAL: tscaptain
Last time I checked we still have a constitutional monarchy so we elect a party and they choose the leader for us - for better or worse! [
Before we go down that path, we must look at some of the more recent incumbents of the White House.
Although the Monarchy is something of an anachronism in the 21st Century, it seems to work well.
If it ain't broke, don't mend it. Although this Government seems to think that everything needs changing for changing's sake.
Perhaps they are just pandering to the readers of newspapers.
As Jim Hacker, Minister and MP, once remarked to his Perminant Secretary and Principal Private Secretary [and which I have amended recently] :
"Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Independent is read by those who are not sure who runs the country but whoever it is, is doing it wrong;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big..."
True in the 1980's; true now. Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
Crikey Julian, I hope you don't think I was suggesting we should go all republic-like![&:] Merely suggesting that we elect a party/government, not a leader. I think we should keep the Royals, they're cheaper to run than the banks! And provide more amusement value, too[]
]
juliany27
New member
ORIGINAL: tscaptain
Crikey Julian, I hope you don't think I was suggesting we should go all republic-like![&:] Merely suggesting that we elect a party/government, not a leader. I think we should keep the Royals, they're cheaper to run than the banks! And provide more amusement value, too[
Wot? Keep the Royal Bank of Scotland? Look at the expense, and how the tax payer has to pay out inflated bonuses.
juliany27
New member
ORIGINAL: tscaptain
And as somebody pointed out, why do they get bonuses for "doing their job" for which they get paid anyway? When the part State owned banks turn in a profit in future can we expect, as taxpayers, a tax rebate in lieu of profit share? No, I thought not.......[
Do you seriously think that the Treasury will allow any taxpayer to get their hands on their money?
The fact that we pay taxes to keep the Civil Servants in relatively well-paid and very secure employment seems to have been ignored. Perhaps it might concentrate the minds of those who direct our lives if they have a pension based closer to the position in which the rest of society find ourselves. They then might not run huge risks with our money.
But back to the question, was JC wrong to describe the present incumbent of Number 10 in the way in which he did? It seems odd that if he had used some humour no-one would have noticed.
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Yes. [&:]
Interesting to see that this thread has hit well over 100 replies. And over 1700 reads. Like the Top Gear and Clarkson style of silly entertainment or not, it gets us enthusiasts going. I'd suggest that he's done his job pretty well. [8|]
Neil Haughey
New member
Well there are a number of issues with this country, its convenient that ppl tend to have a pop at civil servants. Easy to ignore the question that is it even remotely justifiable for a local solicitor to charge 200 quid an hour or for the NHS to be paying multi hundreds of K out to a select few staff when most are on close to minimum wage. We have a society that is brilliant at protecting the interests of small elites. High flying bankers are just the tip of the iceberg.
adrian996
New member
Absolutely. The "Chief Executive" of my local NHS Trust is on £160,000 PA; his deputy is on £120,000, and so on. As an ex-employee of the NHS I'm amazed how things have changed - even over the last 15 years - and I got out of it for that very reason. You can't run a hospital like a business and if Joe-Bloggs really knew what went on in the NHS there'd be riots. Oh, no. Sorry, I forgot, with people trying to speak French I though we were in France then for a minute. There'll be no revolting here then, will there?!
As recently as fifteen years ago (1993), when I lived in hospital accommodation, a guy would come 'round in overalls with a few screw drivers sticking out of his top pocket and he would turn his hand to fixing anything that needed it. Now? The electrician won't touch the blocked sink; the carpenter won't touch the broken light bulb (broken light bulb!!?) and the plumber won't touch the carpet that's come unstuck. "Sorry, mate. My job's not worth it!" I can understand that these people all have different trades - but this is a hospital. I know that it's a long time ago but my Grandfather was a finance manager for THREE central London hospitals in the '50's. I'd take a guess at probably, say, 60 people doing the equivalent job these days....? (Anyone else want to have an estimate?)
...£200 an hour?!
Neil Haughey
New member
The difference is the them and us this time round is probably 99.5% us and less then 0.5% them, and none of what we have seen has made the country more efficient or economically effective just insured that a small elite has got extremely wealthy.
[
] Gold chains, I can tell you live in Essex. Has to be worn with a pullover, no shirt, big muscles and skin head for the full geezer effect []
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
