Jump to content

Quality of MHKs


Gladys
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I assume as [Hooper] was head of the PAC for Dr Ransons testimony and was hailing the appointment of Malone, even after hearing of her involvement.

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

If Hooper doesn’t have much choice and is just a mouthpiece for Civil Servants. 

(Plus he ignored the evidence given to him in PAC !  He should be shouting as loudly as Robertshaw is doing.  DHSC as a tiny office grouping of 30 people is not ‘fit for purpose’ and should be a sub section of Cabinet as should DoE)
 

Isn’t Hooper just as weak and useless as the public demanded Ashford’s exit for?  Double standards 


 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kopek said:

Do you think that Hooper appoints all the Doctors and Nurses as well?

They are in Manx care, Hooper is minister of DHSC where there are only 30 odd staff.   Minus 1 this week and minus a Medical Director in Jan 22

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

If Hooper doesn’t have much choice and is just a mouthpiece for Civil Servants. 

(Plus he ignored the evidence given to him in PAC !  He should be shouting as loudly as Robertshaw is doing.  DHSC as a tiny office grouping of 30 people is not ‘fit for purpose’ and should be a sub section of Cabinet as should DoE)
Isn’t Hooper just as weak and useless as the public demanded Ashford’s exit for?  Double standards 

As I said the PAC evidence didn't include that much about Malone and stuff that came out at the Tribunal wasn't published.  There were an interesting anecdote about interviewing for a CEO position in the Moulton chat, where Robertshaw was describing the Charters interview for the job.  He realised straight away the warning signs[1], but the other panel members (Quayle, Greenhow and someone from HR) though Charters was wonderful and out-voted him eventually.  If the other panel members for Malone had been her co-conspirators Greenhow and Conie, then Hooper may have similarly outvoted, though it would be difficult to find reasons against someone already effectively in post and picked for it by the previous administration.

The interesting thing (also raised in the Moulton discussion) is why Malone was confirmed so quickly - it took DJ Dan three and a half years at DHA to move from being 'acting', Malone was less than a month.  Presumably Greenhow's influence was important.

There's also a bit of confusion surrounding Hooper in that discussion because they keep on referring to his evidence to that Tribunal, but he doesn't appear in the list of witnesses or anywhere in the Decision.  So there may be evidence that isn't publicly available or it may be that they've got mixed up (there's evidence of both in the discussion).

 

[1]  As of course did practically everyone else, though I would imagine that Robertshaw has more interviewing experience than most.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Roger Mexico would the outcomes be any different if the recruitment process, in particular for executive and ceo roles etc were handled by a specialist off island recruitment company, especially one’s experienced in recruitment for UK councils and public and local authority bodies? They should know what to look for on a CV, and what their client wants and needs?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

The interesting thing (also raised in the Moulton discussion) is why Malone was confirmed so quickly - it took DJ Dan three and a half years at DHA to move from being 'acting', Malone was less than a month.  Presumably Greenhow's influence was important.

I think the time it took to appoint a permanent CEO of DHA may have been down to uncertainty over the future of DHA than anything else. There was talk of it being dismantled. They only went out to recruit a permanent CEO when the decision to keep DHA was made. 

Edited by StrangeBrew
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 2112 said:

@Roger Mexico would the outcomes be any different if the recruitment process, in particular for executive and ceo roles etc were handled by a specialist off island recruitment company, especially one’s experienced in recruitment for UK councils and public and local authority bodies? They should know what to look for on a CV, and what their client wants and needs?

I think it might actually make it worse - to some extent the HR problems are caused by them mimicking the UK HR guidelines anyway.  As with so many British management positions the aim with such LA posts in the UK seems to be to get people who use the right jargon and fit in with the corporate ethos, rather than anyone who can actually do the specific job.  Anyone who follow Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column will know how that often turns out.  Reading any LA website and looking at the job titles is usually depressing enough.

And it's also true that to some extent the Island is 'different'.  Any role here will both reflect the smaller size of population but greater potential autonomy.  We ought to attract people who want to try new things and sometimes we do with people like Ranson (and hopefully Cope) but there is clearly opposition from those who like to think of themselves as nationally important (and be paid accordingly) but consider all they need to do is blindly follow England.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, StrangeBrew said:

I think the time it took to appoint a permanent CEO of DHA may have been down to uncertainty over the future of DHA than anything else. There was talk of it being dismantled. They only went out to recruit a permanent CEO when the decision to keep DHA was made. 

That was certainly the excuse being used, though it was wearing thin.  It was never clear what they wanted to replace it with and there would need to be a lot of legislation to change anything.  Whether the two expansionary empires of the AG's Office and Cabinet Office were both eyeing it is possible. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...