DHSC - MHK Resignation!

[Rob Callister]

 

If you guys really need a reason - lets just say that I discovered the Minister and I are two different people with completely different outlooks on how things should be done, and how people should be treated.

 

Kate is the Minister, I have to respect that and as a backbench MHK you either step into line or resign........

 

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

[hboy]

"Malcolm Couch is an intelligent man who has doctorates in Medicine and Finance. He could run rings around either Beecroft or Callister."

 

That may as be, but in a democracy, if such people are so inclined to use their abilities to run rings around politicians it is time they went.

Yes of course. Someone with book keeping qualifications like Beecroft should clearly be dictating to a man with an MD and a Doctorate in Finance about how the DHSC should be run. How silly for that not to happen and for unqualified politicians to allow qualified people to do what they think is right.

Edited April 5, 2017 by hboy

[hboy]

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

It's debatable that you're probably making zero contribution to Onchan but you seem to be blagging it out well enough. That has to be the worst possible reason going and a total admission that you're getting £50k a year from the taxpayer for basically being useless and ineffective in a government role.

Edited April 5, 2017 by hboy

[Declan]

.

 

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

 

That's a dangerous precedent.

[Zammo Maguire]

So when are you going to being a proposal to the house that these pointless departmental roles are scrapped Rob?

[woolley]

 

.

 

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

 

That's a dangerous precedent.

 

And not just in relation to politicians!

[gettafa]

 

"Malcolm Couch is an intelligent man who has doctorates in Medicine and Finance. He could run rings around either Beecroft or Callister."

 

That may as be, but in a democracy, if such people are so inclined to use their abilities to run rings around politicians it is time they went.

Somebody has to. Can you imagine if everyone who was cleverer than the elected politicians simply resigned?

 

 

 

 

"Malcolm Couch is an intelligent man who has doctorates in Medicine and Finance. He could run rings around either Beecroft or Callister."

 

That may as be, but in a democracy, if such people are so inclined to use their abilities to run rings around politicians it is time they went.

Yes of course. Someone with book keeping qualifications like Beecroft should clearly be dictating to a man with an MD and a Doctorate in Finance about how the DHSC should be run. How silly for that not to happen and for unqualified politicians to allow qualified people to do what they think is right.

 

 

That's not how the system works, ah sorry, should work. As anyone in the civil service will tell you. We live in a supposed democracy.

 

Yes, yes, we know who is the smarter, who is the more clever (often, the departmental filing clerk is smarter than the minister, no need for me to give examples).

 

Point being:

 

A) if a CEO does not have the charisma and diplomacy to get their point over, usually by making the politician think it is their idea in the first place, then they shouldn't be there.

 

B) But, and most importantly, if the politician does not have the mental capacity, and is too knuckle-headed, to accept the superior knowledge of the departmental professionals, or in rare case, be able to diplomatically push their point to the fore, then they shouldn't be there.

 

For the system to work a strong Chief Minister is needed with the ability to control both Minister and Executive.

 

I think that may be where the problem ultimately lies.

Edited April 5, 2017 by gettafa

[hboy]

Point being:

 

A) if a CEO does not have the charisma and diplomacy to get their point over, usually by making the politician think it is their idea in the first place, then they shouldn't be there.

 

B) But, and most importantly, if the politician does not have the mental capacity, and is too knuckle-headed, to accept the superior knowledge of the departmental professionals, or in rare case, be able to diplomatically push their point to the fore, then they shouldn't be there.

 

If a politician needs his or her ego constantly fluffed by some paid for forelock tugger then they shouldn't be there.

 

Most of them would be lucky to have a CSE in woodwork. They are there for democratic governance not to run the bloody department with no qualifications.

Edited April 5, 2017 by hboy

[notwell]

 

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

It's debatable that you're probably making zero contribution to Onchan but you seem to be blagging it out well enough. That has to be the worst possible reason going and a total admission that you're getting £50k a year from the taxpayer for basically being useless and ineffective in a government role.

 

Doesn't that depend a little on why he wasn't making a contribution (as he saw it)?

 

The bottom line could be that Beecroft wasn't utlising him so he wasn't making zero contribution out of his own choice.

 

In addition if you then add in that Beecroft wanted a vote of no confidence (I assume with the ultimate aim of removing MC) then if you don't subscribe to that view where does that leave you? In conflict with Beecroft in a department she isn't utilising you in anyway and which she is the top honcho in. RC could have stayed put but how would that help anyone?

Personally I think DHSC is by far the hardest place to be. And Malcolm Couch is an asset rather than a liability. Beecroft is out of her depth and this will become more evident as time passes.

[hboy]

Doesn't that depend a little on why he wasn't making a contribution (as he saw it)?

No, Im sure if anyone's boss thought they were useless and added nothing to their £50k a year job after 4 months it would probably be a reflection that they probably weren't that good at their job. That's why most people have a probation period in a job. More to the point if you vacated that job after only 4 months voluntarily it might well be an admission that you knew you were out of your depth from the start.

 

On that basis I find Callisters claim that by his own admission he was making "zero contribution" to a job the taxpayer was paying him £50k a year to do absolutely staggering. I wonder which job he intends to contribute zero to next at our expense?

[notwell]

Yes, but you have to remember RC was PLACED into the department by someone else. Not Beecroft. If she didn't want RC in there from the start then he's on a hiding to nothing anyway.

 

I believe that it is Beecroft that is out of her depth (and the talk of this vote of no confidence in one of the brightest people in the CS supports that). RC might have been out of his depth, he might not have been. But it looks to me like he wasn't given the chance to contribute one way or the other.

[hboy]

Yes, but you have to remember RC was PLACED into the department by someone else. Not Beecroft. If she didn't want RC in there from the start then he's on a hiding to nothing anyway.

 

I believe that it is Beecroft that is out of her depth (and the talk of this vote of no confidence in one of the brightest people in the CS supports that). RC might have been out of his depth, he might not have been. But it looks to me like he wasn't given the chance to contribute one way or the other.

By his own admission he made "zero contribution" to a job he is paid £50k a year to do. I think he needs to explain himself on that. All I'm doing is making a general observation that if I thought the taxpayer was paying me £50K a year to make "zero contribution" to the most important department in government I'd keep my mouth shut and go quietly. Not look for high profile and extravagant ways of flouncing out of that job and trying to make it look like it's someone else who is at fault.

 

He used the words "zero contribution" not me. And he said that he admitted that he made "zero contribution" not that Beecrofts actions resulted in there being zero contribution he could make.

 

Now he admits he has had media training it's hard to see how he has actually applied any of it by making utterly stupid public statements above about him apparently adding no value whatsoever to the DHSC.

Edited April 5, 2017 by hboy

[Declan]

That's a twisted way of looking at it hboy. He's saying he made zero contribution in one role he was put in. Not zero contribution from election. I imagine he believes he's made a contribution to DED, in the house, and as mhk for Onchan.

[Bellefield]

If you guys really need a reason - lets just say that I discovered the Minister and I are two different people with completely different outlooks on how things should be done, and how people should be treated.

 

Kate is the Minister, I have to respect that and as a backbench MHK you either step into line or resign........

 

I was also making a zero contribution in the department, so there was no reason to be in the Department

fair enough Rob, sounds like you were on a hiding to nothing anyway

[hboy]

That's a twisted way of looking at it hboy. He's saying he made zero contribution in one role he was put in. Not zero contribution from election. I imagine he believes he's made a contribution to DED, in the house, and as mhk for Onchan.

He said it

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/61873-dhsc-mhk-resignation/?p=1168770

 

And all I said is that he needs to explain himself on that point because he, by his own admission, apparently made "zero contribution" to the DHSC despite being paid to be a member of the department.

 

That's not a twisted way of looking at it in my book. He needs to explain himself if he didn't mean to project himself in that way.