shurlock

According to some, isn’t Kat going to buy the club back off Goa?

You thought Boufal had a good game?

Redmond’s a bigger miss than Armstrong.

The limits of Goa’s commitment are absolutely clear. As soon as we stop being profitable, he gets itchy feet. So much for our brilliant self-sustaining business model that depends disproportionately on acumen in the transfer market and academy but instead has been overseen by fools (I see Uncle Les comes out of the article smelling of roses). There’s absolutely no chance anyone will buy the club for £250m in this climate. Goa has to be willing to sell at a significant discount if he wants to exit his investment. Through a combination of stubbornness and naivety, my fear is that it’s going to take an inefficiently long time for that penny to drop. In the meantime, I suspect there will be greater pressure to sell valuable players like JWP and Redmond, even if they’re not clamouring for a transfer as Goa grows more impatient.

He got a standing ovation because of the sense of injustice that he had been wrongly sent off.

The first thirty minutes in which they had a flurry of chances Les - ones, as it turned out, were better than anything we created all afternoon? Those 30mins? We started extremely brightly for the first ten mins after which they took control for 10 mins before we slowly started to reassert ourselves without looking particularly dangerous. Then the sending off happened.

Dog**** game, decent support. We’re pretty much safe, so won’t lose too much sleep over the result - biggest disappointment is that deadwood we want to clear isn’t putting itself in the shop window and players we want to build a side around are still woefully inconsistent.

I hope you had a word with Jonny Bognor.

What a week or two: from the humiliating admission that a trade deal with the US -presented as one of the great prizes of leaving the EU (see OP) will have a near negligible impact on the economy (don’t spend your winnings all at once lads); to the delay of the UK’s rival to Galileo (another symbol of post-Brexit independence) amid internal wrangling and rising costs; to Michael Gove endorsing claims that the UK will need to hire up up to 50,000 people to deal with an explosion of customs paperwork and red tape even if the UK secures a Canada-style deal; to Brexiters accusing the government of selling the country’s soul, security and sovereignty to Huawei and the Chinese state (that’s what happening when you’re the weaker party lads); to farmers in uproar over subsidies and post-Brexit plans, to deepening angst in NI over the border - reality is beginning to bite. Cue the usual ignorant sloganeering and conspiratorial nonsense from the usual suspects. #funandgames

So what if a strategy paid off? You don’t think that proper scrutiny of those who govern us has intrinsic or independent value beyond what politicians can get away at the ballot box? Presumably, it doesn’t matter if politicians of whatever party lie or dissemble as long as it helps them win votes either? The ends justify the means? Thank f**k I don’t share those values. I’m not saying you necessarily share them either (LD clearly does). But retreating behind “the aim was to win the election” or “the strategy paid off” -as if these were neutral acts- risks conveying that impression and is a very slippery slope.

Nobody except rabid Corbynistas thought Labour won the argument but crack on with your laughable analogy. Unless you believe it too.

And to think the usual suspects would have been creaming their pants if an opposition leader had pulled a similar stunt (regardless of the result)

Lots of people don’t do things because they fear they’ll get exposed and so calculate that the downside of pulling out or not seeing them through is far less than the costs of getting exposed. That calculation may be perfectly rational but it doesn’t make it any less of an act of cowardice.

LD, the ultimate easy touch, is showing his true colours today. His softarsed excuses for boris the bottlejob would be hilarious if they weren’t so pitiful.

My understanding is that the DWP official worked in her private office, so would have had quite a bit of contact with her (I mention private office roles in my post). Physically they are located outside the minister’s office along with the SPADs. Work involves organising diaries, preparing briefing notes, reviewing submissions and liaising with the rest of the department and other departments. These posts are almost always filled by junior civil servants. The content of the work is pretty straightforward but it’s a nonetheless demanding role as it sits directly between the minister and the rest of the department, so will be a lightening rod for any wider issues and tensions. It’s quite a notch on your CV to show you worked in private office early in your career.

Its a shame that there's no imaginable set of circumstances in which Les would or could ever pass the fast stream civil service exam. For if there was one, he might actually understand how government and the civil service work.

Hello Les You're getting very excitable - all I said is that the relationship between ministers and civil servants is pretty unique in terms of an employment relationship. Let's get a few things clear pal. Ministers will not see the vast majority of Whitehall civil servants - unless they work in private office, are delivering something extremely time-sensitive (e.g. the publication of a White Paper) or are very senior (note Rutnam was speaking on behalf of the entire department and the treatment of colleagues). Even a grade 5 - the first rung in the senior civil service- will be lucky to see a minister once a fortnight or so. When they do meet, it will be for a discrete and specific reason. Ministers are unlikely to know the name of the majority of civil servants - never mind know whether they’re any good at their jobs. Unless ministers have been in the department for a long time and/or are particularly clued up, they will also know much less about a complex policy area than the majority of civil servants (by the same token, this can make some civil servants quite insular and stuck in their ways). It’s among the reasons why performance appraisal and day-to-day management are the responsibility of civil servants, not ministers - the need to ensure the political neutrality of the civil service being the obvious other reason. Its hard to think of many employment relations that look like this. From my experience and understanding of the situation, the issue is the same old story of a minister -regardless of party background- committing to an unrealistic timetable for political considerations and civil servants getting caught in the crossfire of what’s politically desirable and what’s operationally feasible while attempting to muddle through and achieve the ministers objectives. The result, especially on hot-button issues like immigration or welfare reform, is that civil servants are often on a hiding to nothing. However, competent ministers will engage seriously with civil servants advice and appreciate the spirit in which it is given. Bad ministers lash out. It may be because they are dim yet arrogant and thin-skinned without redeeming people skills; it may be because they are incapable of thinking in policy -rather than political- terms that requires longer time-horizons and handle pressure badly, especially if they are unable to stand up to No.10 that tends to be even more politically-motivated and short-termist. Having a Cabinet made up strictly of the PM's favourites -to some extent unavoidable- only further disrupts this balance. The dynamic is nearly always the same. Whether lashing out constitutes bullying, of course, is an empirical matter. All I’ll say is that I’ve seen ministers lose their rag with civil servants and nobody has batted an eyelid as it’s ‘priced’ into the relationship. That is, most civil servants I’ve met would not escalate a matter lightly. I've seen much more courteous relationships in the private sector (that may also be a function of HR being better in the private sector in my experience). As for Patel, I'll await the full story, though it is interesting that even some of her friends are not surprised by the revelations and believe she's repeatedly crossed the line of what is acceptable conduct for a public servant in today's workplace (per the FT). But that's moot in the context of this post.

I suspect you’ve never worked in central government and don’t have a clue about the dynamic between ministers and civil servants. It’s completely different from a normal work relationship or the relationship between a line manager and a subordinate. So your little homespun anecdotes are sweet but irrelevant.

Why am I going to comment on something for which the police has not found evidence to charge or arrest anyone? Should the facts change, then I’ll happily comment. In the meantime, if pondering unproven hypotheticals helps you cope with your own stupidity and ignore basic distinctions and while away your time, fill your boots. Alas my time is a bit more valuable than yours pal.

And while we’re on the subject, double whooooosh. I’m truly shocked that my comment would go over Les’ little head...

As usual you’re all over the place Les. According to the Mail, the Police has confirmed that no other people -besides Lennon- were arrested or charged in connection with the incident. So yes there are two sides to every story. One person was arrested/charged; another person wasn’t assaulted or charged. Crack on pal. Ignore that most basic of basic distinctions and keep brooding about dark conspiracies that only make you look even more of a lunatic

I’ll ask you again: has anyone been charged or arrested? Feel free to actually answer my question.

Has anyone been arrested or charged for this? Have you been reading your ‘sources’ again?

If it isn’t LD’s casual disregard for adultery and its effect on families, it’s his readiness to impugn the motives and reputations of Harvey Weinstein’s victims. Talk about bile and hate-filled.

I wonder what his wife/ex-wife and kids think.