Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 19, 2024 21:50:21 GMT
Has anyone considered why we have diversity managers? Because many organisations incl the NHS have a poor history of developing and retainiing talent that doesn't belong to what some see as mainstream. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 19, 2024 22:08:52 GMT
Has anyone considered why we have diversity managers? Because many organisations incl the NHS have a poor history of developing and retainiing talent that doesn't belong to what some see as mainstream. Yep. My daughter-in-law says their diversity manager is a real asset. Apparently the Philippine nurses prefer the 28th to the 31 December off, rather than Christmas and Boxing day. No one knew before she met them all and discussed various things that have helped them all loads. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 19, 2024 22:44:57 GMT
Like everyone I suppose Zany there will be some good diversity people and some bad ones. Overall I suspect they contribute well. But it is the latest in a long line of outrage distractors used by the populists to con frankly gullible if fundamentally decent people like Vinny. I wish I could think of a way to protect them from being conned in this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 20, 2024 8:04:49 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 20, 2024 15:08:31 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support. Just a different boot on your neck. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 24, 2024 6:40:49 GMT
This is the sort of thing I was hoping to see, not just dabbling round the edges. GuardianRachel Reeves is considering changing how the government’s fiscal rules are calculated to allow billions of pounds more in capital spending, according to government sources. The chancellor told the Labour conference on Monday she believed the Treasury undervalued public investment and wanted to change the way public spending is seen at the top of government. Sources have confirmed she could use next month’s budget to change the way the government’s five-year debt rule is assessed in a way that could allow more spending on housing, roads and hospitals. Reeves told delegates in Liverpool: “It is time the Treasury moved on from just counting the costs of investment in our economy to recognising the benefits too.” She added: “Growth is the challenge and investment is the solution.” |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Sept 24, 2024 7:16:42 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support. Why was the journalist nutty,could it be just on the basis you don’t agree with anyone that is concerned about the level of immigration? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Sept 24, 2024 7:33:35 GMT
This is the sort of thing I was hoping to see, not just dabbling round the edges. GuardianRachel Reeves is considering changing how the government’s fiscal rules are calculated to allow billions of pounds more in capital spending, according to government sources. The chancellor told the Labour conference on Monday she believed the Treasury undervalued public investment and wanted to change the way public spending is seen at the top of government. Sources have confirmed she could use next month’s budget to change the way the government’s five-year debt rule is assessed in a way that could allow more spending on housing, roads and hospitals. Reeves told delegates in Liverpool: “It is time the Treasury moved on from just counting the costs of investment in our economy to recognising the benefits too.” She added: “Growth is the challenge and investment is the solution.” Yes, these are the things we need to see and, coincidentally, we discussed this artificial extra spending here on Sunday - from the article:
I have to say I didn't draw the same level of optimism present in the Guardian article from Reeves' speech, nor was I impressed with her performance in the two television interviews where she was defending the WFA cut and the donations issue. That said, she may turn out to be a first class chancellor while being a very mediocre politician. I certainly hope so.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 24, 2024 8:31:07 GMT
Sounds like fiddling the figures to me. Invest a billion in a vanity project to win votes and then pretend it's worth a billion on the books so no deficit increase.
Well that's worked out just fine for HS2, for those big software projects etc hasn't it (not).
Any departure from counting cash plus securities should be questioned, questioned again and then rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Sept 24, 2024 12:15:15 GMT
Sounds like fiddling the figures to me. Invest a billion in a vanity project to win votes and then pretend it's worth a billion on the books so no deficit increase. Well that's worked out just fine for HS2, for those big software projects etc hasn't it (not). Any departure from counting cash plus securities should be questioned, questioned again and then rejected. That was my first thought. Just a different type of tinkering. But as I struggled to follow your and Brownlows discussion in the defecit thread i now doubt everything that I am sure of...economically speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Sept 24, 2024 12:18:08 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support. What utter nonsense was the journalist saying about the French? That the French take three times the numbers of Asylum seekers is a useful argument in some context. But it still raises the question why the other asylum seekers would risk life and limb crossing the channel when they could seek asylum in France.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 24, 2024 13:49:22 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support. What utter nonsense was the journalist saying about the French? That the French take three times the numbers of Asylum seekers is a useful argument in some context. But it still raises the question why the other asylum seekers would risk life and limb crossing the channel when they could seek asylum in France.
Because many of them already speak some English (and few French) so believe they will be able to find jobs they won't be able to get in France? Which would make them economic migrants. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Sept 24, 2024 14:11:11 GMT
Watched the end of Question Time last night for first time in very long time. Subject of asylum predictably came up. Some nutty journalist talking utter nonsense about France and the people themselves, but have to say the Labour person in tone and substance sounded like Reform in a red jacket. It fell to Tim Farron to show a little compassion and point out a few facts like France takes three times the number of refugees we do and that 80% or so of people coming here to claim asylum are found to be genuinely fleeing persecution. I am beginning to share concern Zany’s concern in the opening post. If this lot intend to govern ignoring values, doing very little and spreading hatred as a smokescreen they will very quickly lose my cautious optimism and support. What utter nonsense was the journalist saying about the French? That the French take three times the numbers of Asylum seekers is a useful argument in some context. But it still raises the question why the other asylum seekers would risk life and limb crossing the channel when they could seek asylum in France.
When they took questions from the audience one member who came here with his family fifty years ago said he and his family are productive members of society and good for him and them,where I take issue is he then said we (the British) had an obligation to those countries because we went there as colonialists and ruined it for them to much applause from the audience. There is a fashion now from some across the world that we owe them because of our history sadly there are many in this country who wish for sack cloth and ashes and that we should be ashamed of that history rewrite it and pay reparations,I am not ashamed of our history and don’t believe we should give in to blackmail. Laughably one of the countries he cited that he said we went to as colonialists and ruined the country for that people was Libya and not a one on the panel or audience picked up on. Anyone with even limited knowledge should know that Libya like so much of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire so the supposed victims of that ruination should all go to Turkey for recompense shouldn’t they? We might have history but you cannot judge on events a hundred or more years ago by todays standards but funnily enough those who should be judged imo for their involvement in very recent events are lauded and feted by many a multi millionaire with a foundation and who is soften defended by those who want to rewrite our past and be ashamed of events beyond living memory. |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Sept 24, 2024 14:22:09 GMT
What utter nonsense was the journalist saying about the French? That the French take three times the numbers of Asylum seekers is a useful argument in some context. But it still raises the question why the other asylum seekers would risk life and limb crossing the channel when they could seek asylum in France.
Because many of them already speak some English (and few French) so believe they will be able to find jobs they won't be able to get in France? Which would make them economic migrants. IIRC I was reading in the economist that another one of our draws is our lax labour market. Even so if the French are taking 3 times more than us to my mind that does put a different complexion on the situation and to some extent explains why the French are less than enthusiastic about doing anything about the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Sept 24, 2024 14:27:05 GMT
What utter nonsense was the journalist saying about the French? That the French take three times the numbers of Asylum seekers is a useful argument in some context. But it still raises the question why the other asylum seekers would risk life and limb crossing the channel when they could seek asylum in France.
When they took questions from the audience one member who came here with his family fifty years ago said he and his family are productive members of society and good for him and them,where I take issue is he then said we (the British) had an obligation to those countries because we went there as colonialists and ruined it for them to much applause from the audience. There is a fashion now from some across the world that we owe them because of our history sadly there are many in this country who wish for sack cloth and ashes and that we should be ashamed of that history rewrite it and pay reparations,I am not ashamed of our history and don’t believe we should give in to blackmail. Laughably one of the countries he cited that he said we went to as colonialists and ruined the country for that people was Libya and not a one on the panel or audience picked up on. Anyone with even limited knowledge should know that Libya like so much of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire so the supposed victims of that ruination should all go to Turkey for recompense shouldn’t they? We might have history but you cannot judge on events a hundred or more years ago by todays standards but funnily enough those who should be judged imo for their involvement in very recent events are lauded and feted by many a multi millionaire with a foundation and who is soften defended by those who want to rewrite our past and be ashamed of events beyond living memory. It's a fairly recent phenomenon that ex colonial countries, that have not faired well blame their colonisers and seek reparations. IMO it's just politicians seeking cover for the fact that they ran their countries badly or failed to "realise their potential".
I agree it's just silly to judge the world 100 years ago by today's standards. I find it difficult to believe that if the shoe had been on the other foot should it have been any different.
Being fair minded I think I would like to actually see the case for reparations. It may be that the countries would have been better off if not colonised and it may be that the countries actually benefitted from being colonised. Its difficult to know without looking into the details of the matter.
|
|
