Fuller K Rapp Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Only in your tiny tiny mind True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I've been wanting to put those events on 'that' Politics Facebook pages, but I'm not sure how they would go down. probably get deleted. But people need to know and understand that bit of Isle of Man history. Anyway, apologies I have drifted way off-topic. You didn't drift. You should just do it. Perhaps the opportunity to do just that is now, over on Facebook. With reference to my earlier posts as examples, I think Buster should be reminded how indeed "one man can make such an impact on so many good people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I've been wanting to put those events on 'that' Politics Facebook pages, but I'm not sure how they would go down. probably get deleted. But people need to know and understand that bit of Isle of Man history. Anyway, apologies I have drifted way off-topic. You didn't drift. You should just do it. Perhaps the opportunity to do just that is now, over on Facebook. With reference to my earlier posts as examples, I think Buster should be reminded how indeed "one man can make such an impact on so many good people". Buster crime.jpg Says the jailbird, for a much, much worse crime . You could not make it up. Buster is not by any stretch of the imagination stupid, so I just cannot understand where he is coming from on his soapbox opinions. Is it some sort of denial. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I've been wanting to put those events on 'that' Politics Facebook pages, but I'm not sure how they would go down. probably get deleted. But people need to know and understand that bit of Isle of Man history. Anyway, apologies I have drifted way off-topic. You didn't drift. You should just do it. Perhaps the opportunity to do just that is now, over on Facebook. With reference to my earlier posts as examples, I think Buster should be reminded how indeed "one man can make such an impact on so many good people". Buster crime.jpg Poor Buster. No hint of irony there whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Why would I boast about something that I am extremely embarrassed about Lets be perfectly honest, I haven't done anything wrong - other than to stand up for what is actually right. I certainly cannot support anyone being sacked (or transferred) from a job without being given a genuine reason, even then the full disciplinary process must be followed. To return to the topic from the more difficult task of trying to take Buster's views seriously, I don't think anyone has yet commented on Rob's rather strange comment that I have bolded. While it is true that such things should apply to jobs further down the pecking order (though there's enough evidence from tribunals that it doesn't happen there), when it comes to the top jobs in a government or anywhere else, it's simply not practical. Top civil servants have to deliver and they have to be able to work with their political colleagues. They're certainly rewarded well enough to do those things. To demand that the only way they can be removed is through cumbersome and long-winded disciplinary processes is a recipe for having sub-standard management who are guaranteed their position no matter how badly things go - because they will always be able to blame the underlings. This is a general point and I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of this particular situation. Couch has now been in position for nearly two years and it may be that Beecroft felt he should have done more or have more coherent plan to put things right or was failing to deliver the reforms he had promised. Alternatively Beecroft may have made unrealistic demands or put personal feelings first. There would certainly have been some resistance to her among some elements of the administration, due to her attacks on them in the past, but whether Couch shares those views, I don't know. Hopefully they will still be able to work together and have the same aims. 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 Rob's first para rather confirms that he has an unrealistic view of how things can be run at the top of an organisation. But this also illustrates the point I have been making since the most extensive ever appointment of departmental members that we saw after the last election. If such members are not given a definite and substantial role in the Department (rather than just posing in photos a couple of times a month) what are they there for? In Rob's case he didn't even get the 30-40% salary upgrade from the DHSC position as he already was a member of DED - where he does have a more substantial role - though there are some Tynwald members who seem happy to take the money and do the minimum. The only reason is to give a guaranteed Tynwald majority for what ideas the civil servants running the departments come up with - no matter how daft. The real question for Rob is not why he resigned from DHSC, but why he joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Why would I boast about something that I am extremely embarrassed about Lets be perfectly honest, I haven't done anything wrong - other than to stand up for what is actually right. I certainly cannot support anyone being sacked (or transferred) from a job without being given a genuine reason, even then the full disciplinary process must be followed. To return to the topic from the more difficult task of trying to take Buster's views seriously, I don't think anyone has yet commented on Rob's rather strange comment that I have bolded. While it is true that such things should apply to jobs further down the pecking order (though there's enough evidence from tribunals that it doesn't happen there), when it comes to the top jobs in a government or anywhere else, it's simply not practical. Top civil servants have to deliver and they have to be able to work with their political colleagues. They're certainly rewarded well enough to do those things. To demand that the only way they can be removed is through cumbersome and long-winded disciplinary processes is a recipe for having sub-standard management who are guaranteed their position no matter how badly things go - because they will always be able to blame the underlings. This is a general point and I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of this particular situation. Couch has now been in position for nearly two years and it may be that Beecroft felt he should have done more or have more coherent plan to put things right or was failing to deliver the reforms he had promised. Alternatively Beecroft may have made unrealistic demands or put personal feelings first. There would certainly have been some resistance to her among some elements of the administration, due to her attacks on them in the past, but whether Couch shares those views, I don't know. Hopefully they will still be able to work together and have the same aims. 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 Rob's first para rather confirms that he has an unrealistic view of how things can be run at the top of an organisation. But this also illustrates the point I have been making since the most extensive ever appointment of departmental members that we saw after the last election. If such members are not given a definite and substantial role in the Department (rather than just posing in photos a couple of times a month) what are they there for? In Rob's case he didn't even get the 30-40% salary upgrade from the DHSC position as he already was a member of DED - where he does have a more substantial role - though there are some Tynwald members who seem happy to take the money and do the minimum. The only reason is to give a guaranteed Tynwald majority for what ideas the civil servants running the departments come up with - no matter how daft. The real question for Rob is not why he resigned from DHSC, but why he joined. But Couch is a civil servant. He can be criticised if his management of the DHSC is weak (although I haven't spotted that sort of criticism anywhere) - however the policies rest with the politicians - e.g. 5 year strategy. Is Saint Kate frustrated with Howard's legacy, Couch's management attributes or is she settling old scores for herself or an unknown associate? There is a document called the Government Code which says that a minister can ask for a chief executive officer to be moved on, but there must be a process surely, or we will have a politicised civil service a la USA? Kate can't just dislike Malcolm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 How about bring back that guy who rode a Harley and drew silly diagrams and liked flying around the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Why would I boast about something that I am extremely embarrassed about Lets be perfectly honest, I haven't done anything wrong - other than to stand up for what is actually right.I certainly cannot support anyone being sacked (or transferred) from a job without being given a genuine reason, even then the full disciplinary process must be followed. To return to the topic from the more difficult task of trying to take Buster's views seriously, I don't think anyone has yet commented on Rob's rather strange comment that I have bolded. While it is true that such things should apply to jobs further down the pecking order (though there's enough evidence from tribunals that it doesn't happen there), when it comes to the top jobs in a government or anywhere else, it's simply not practical. He clearly has very little experience of life if that is his view. It happens every day right across the IOM and the UK and it's virtually common practice. Here's a compromise agreement, sign it, you'll be paid up to the end of your notice period, don't come back in, byeee .. why should government posts be any different? I think Couch is doing a good job but to suggest there should be any form of reason or disciplinary process that should apply before you can let anyone senior go is just completely naive. If Rob genuinely thinks like the above he has virtually no grasp of how the real world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I think that may be a little simplistic, I believe he was right to stand by his principles and support Dr Couch. The fact that he may not understand quite how things work with senior executives is slightly immaterial, he can learn that, the principle and end result are the same. The same criticism could easily be applied to most of our new MHK's and perhaps some of the older ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 The same criticism could easily be applied to most of our new MHK's and perhaps some of the older ones. None of whom have yet stormed out in an embarrassing huff. I'm sorry but before someone does that they need to use their experience and skills to deal with the situation properly and proportionately. In most cases sacking someone is entirely acceptable practice (if done properly) and it's common place to do so and anyone with any level of management experience should know that. As I said I think Couch is an asset to the DHSC but that statement shows Callister just doesn't have a clue. He had no need to resign as the event (the alleged sacking or request to sack) he was protesting about didn't even happen. Nobody was sacked yet he apparently used the whole thing as an escape route and a chance for publicity (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Nine of whom have yet stormed out in an embarrassing huff. Cripes, there won't be any left at that rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.