The BBC via its science editor David Shukman is pushing the latest output from the Climate Change Propaganda Unit otherwise known as the Met Office. This time however, after repeated attempts to predict the weather based on Climate Change ideology and getting it spectacularly wrong, they may have hit on a winning formula.
Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.
In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.
Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.
Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.
Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.
A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.
Showing posts with label Met Office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Met Office. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Monday, 3 March 2014
Weather Forecasts
I know the British are obsessed with weather. And to conform to stereotype, here I go. Is it just me or do other people get annoyed about the way the Met Office presents its forecasts? What I mean is, last weekend we were bracing for snow, with several inches predicted, quite widely and a yellow warning pasted up.
Then, without reference to having said it was going to snow, they just said that it was going to rain. I mean, it doesn't matter Met Office, stuff like that happens. As the day gets closer, its a bit warmer so rain instead of snow. It would do no harm to say 'well, it looks like we're going to dodge the snow, but it will rain instead'. The Met Office however, seem intent on giving the impression that they are never wrong and this is backed up by not mentioning an earlier 'incorrect' forecast.
This nervousness about being wrong is strange when you consider their penchant for ideologically framed statements. As they believe in Global Warming, it will be hot in the summer, mild in the winter and we will have droughts. This idiots approach to pronouncements is nearly always wrong, yet they persist.
I suppose it is what we should expect when the Met Office is run by ninnies.
Then, without reference to having said it was going to snow, they just said that it was going to rain. I mean, it doesn't matter Met Office, stuff like that happens. As the day gets closer, its a bit warmer so rain instead of snow. It would do no harm to say 'well, it looks like we're going to dodge the snow, but it will rain instead'. The Met Office however, seem intent on giving the impression that they are never wrong and this is backed up by not mentioning an earlier 'incorrect' forecast.
This nervousness about being wrong is strange when you consider their penchant for ideologically framed statements. As they believe in Global Warming, it will be hot in the summer, mild in the winter and we will have droughts. This idiots approach to pronouncements is nearly always wrong, yet they persist.
I suppose it is what we should expect when the Met Office is run by ninnies.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Science, Scientists And Method.
Should we not be applying scientific method to scientists? I ask because the Global Warming scam rolls on and more and more nonsense spews out, often from people who you think cannot just be doing and saying what they do to further the aims of Marxism. Clearly they are intellectual morons. But the man in the street is shielded from the fact because the legacy media, the traditional 'newspapers' no longer investigate stories and often are Left oriented anyway.
In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.
Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.
So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.
Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.
Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.
If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.
Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.
So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!
In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.
Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.
So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.
Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.
Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.
If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.
Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.
So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!
Monday, 14 January 2013
Odd Rod Liddle
I like much of what Rod Liddle writes, particularly recently. He seems to have matured and is a bit more conscious of the stupidity of much of the Left's output. Obviously much of the stupidity is just poorly thought out tosh, to hide what they are really up to, but nevertheless, it's there.
But at the weekend Rod, who has been claiming these days that he is not so sure about AGW, wrote a piece that said the Met Office has accounted for the lack of a temperature rise since 1997, by agreeing and predicting that it will be like that for another 5 years.
Well that's OK then. Now that there is categoric proof. I mean it must be, because the even-handed Mr. Liddle goes on to suggest anyone disagreeing is a 'loon'. I think he was suggesting that everyone who feels at liberty to question a scientific theory believes there is a world wide communist conspiracy behind it. I guess the possibility that the Judean Popular Front and a number of other organisations of a similar name, have the same desired objective without agreeing on details, is not likely
If there is no conspiracy, it isn't happening. Well, I'm sure there is no conspiracy, certainly not in the James Bond understood context that seems to be all that occurs to Rod, but it is clear a mindset exists that thinks Western civilisation is a cancer of the planet and should be (at least) reined in. I remember this being a popular view among the 14 year old girls in my art class at school. People generally grow out of it when they have to assume some responsibility in life.
Some people though clearly don't get past this stage and, frustrated by both everyone else and reality not chiming with their views they dig in. Sometimes they just rant at the moon, but sometimes they kill people who try to find cures for diseases by experimenting on animals. They don't bother to look into, or understand the object of their rage (and there might be some legitimate things to oppose), it is their image of animals derived from too much Peter Rabbit that drives them.
Is it ironic to have a complete lack of humanity, whilst complaining that you think someone has a complete lack of humanity? But back to Global Warming. Rod says that you cannot argue that the world's temperature has increased. Which I don't think anyone does argue with. What the concern is Rod, is why.
Your faith in the Met Office is touching, being a sort of religious faith requiring no reasoning. The Met Office of course has until now been hiding the fact that there has been no warming since 1997. Why would you hide it? As a scientific institution? Why does a body such as the Royal Society say that this particular scientific subject is unique and must not be discussed; we have arrived at the absolute truth. To continue to research the area, or propose alternate theories would be, well, heresy.
The Met Office even produced figures to prove our recent rainfall was part of an extreme weather pattern, due to AGW. To get the figures to appear scary though, they omitted two dry years. But we should trust these people explicitly, yes? Their computer models are wrong, but it is ultimately the basis for all the stupid spending by government, of our taxes on energy policies of no utility.
Sure they make some individuals and energy companies rich, by giving them subsidies (a political measure, given to companies when it is clear it isn't self sustaining), but for the rest of us, it puts us in jeopardy of having no fuel in the near future and paying through the nose when we do get any. (Actually, for wind power, we pay even when they don't produce. Nice deal eh?)
The easiest way to get money in modern Britain, is to con the government. Obviously, management consultants have been doing this, on an enormous scale for many years. Now more people want in on the action, not least MP's. Now, riding on the backs of ideological ignoramuses, arch capitalists (or thieves, really) are using the poor confused government as a milch cow.
Not maybe what the greens wanted, but hey, if it undermines Western democracy and destroys their societies, it is all the same. And it allows post destruction finger pointing that much of it was due to 'capitalist greed', which would be true.
So, to help Rod a little, here is what a sceptic actually thinks; the world has shown some warming. It is not dramatic yet and could be considered benign, but it is valid to ask what is driving it and come to understand the implications. Currently we don't know, but the cyclical patterns we see from Earth's history and our understanding of solar activity, it is probably mainly the sun.
What it definitely isn't due to is Man's output of CO2. Despite the recurring theme of the central importance of Man on Earth throughout history, we really aren't that significant. Strange really, the current Left attempts to undermine civilisation by saying that Man is heating the planet, is based on their view that Man is insignificant, Mother Earth is the important 'one'.
We know, by using not abusing science that CO2 concentrations have spiked some 400 years after global temperatures rose. This was the area for a big lie by Al Gore, who slipped the graph the other way round when talking about it on his gloriously (and no doubt intentionally) mis-titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Pollution however is unpleasant and probably largely unnecessary, but we are not looking hard enough for alternative solutions to our energy needs, partly because of the efforts of the Greens sucking funds to their organisations and projects. But also, partly due to the fact that a huge oil and gas infrastructure exists and that is not going to be rendered redundant overnight whilst politicians can still be manipulated and bribed!
So the 'conspiracy' is just the convergence of the activities of a large number of ideologically Left organisations working to undermine our current system of government and society. They have to work this way, to achieve power and then introduce their much better style of government, because no one would vote for it. What does that tell us?
And Global Warming might be happening and it might not. It is very probably something beyond our control and entirely natural if it is happening. There is an enormous amount of energy potential all around us (an apple contains the equivalent of a million tons of TNT) we just don't know how to get at it. And thanks to the Met Office and other harmful organisations, with the unthinking support of people such as Rod Liddle, we are not really looking into it.
Left ideology has been and continues to be, very harmful in societies, but for science to be subsumed by it is both unforgivable and dangerous.
But at the weekend Rod, who has been claiming these days that he is not so sure about AGW, wrote a piece that said the Met Office has accounted for the lack of a temperature rise since 1997, by agreeing and predicting that it will be like that for another 5 years.
Well that's OK then. Now that there is categoric proof. I mean it must be, because the even-handed Mr. Liddle goes on to suggest anyone disagreeing is a 'loon'. I think he was suggesting that everyone who feels at liberty to question a scientific theory believes there is a world wide communist conspiracy behind it. I guess the possibility that the Judean Popular Front and a number of other organisations of a similar name, have the same desired objective without agreeing on details, is not likely
If there is no conspiracy, it isn't happening. Well, I'm sure there is no conspiracy, certainly not in the James Bond understood context that seems to be all that occurs to Rod, but it is clear a mindset exists that thinks Western civilisation is a cancer of the planet and should be (at least) reined in. I remember this being a popular view among the 14 year old girls in my art class at school. People generally grow out of it when they have to assume some responsibility in life.
Some people though clearly don't get past this stage and, frustrated by both everyone else and reality not chiming with their views they dig in. Sometimes they just rant at the moon, but sometimes they kill people who try to find cures for diseases by experimenting on animals. They don't bother to look into, or understand the object of their rage (and there might be some legitimate things to oppose), it is their image of animals derived from too much Peter Rabbit that drives them.
Is it ironic to have a complete lack of humanity, whilst complaining that you think someone has a complete lack of humanity? But back to Global Warming. Rod says that you cannot argue that the world's temperature has increased. Which I don't think anyone does argue with. What the concern is Rod, is why.
Your faith in the Met Office is touching, being a sort of religious faith requiring no reasoning. The Met Office of course has until now been hiding the fact that there has been no warming since 1997. Why would you hide it? As a scientific institution? Why does a body such as the Royal Society say that this particular scientific subject is unique and must not be discussed; we have arrived at the absolute truth. To continue to research the area, or propose alternate theories would be, well, heresy.
The Met Office even produced figures to prove our recent rainfall was part of an extreme weather pattern, due to AGW. To get the figures to appear scary though, they omitted two dry years. But we should trust these people explicitly, yes? Their computer models are wrong, but it is ultimately the basis for all the stupid spending by government, of our taxes on energy policies of no utility.
Sure they make some individuals and energy companies rich, by giving them subsidies (a political measure, given to companies when it is clear it isn't self sustaining), but for the rest of us, it puts us in jeopardy of having no fuel in the near future and paying through the nose when we do get any. (Actually, for wind power, we pay even when they don't produce. Nice deal eh?)
The easiest way to get money in modern Britain, is to con the government. Obviously, management consultants have been doing this, on an enormous scale for many years. Now more people want in on the action, not least MP's. Now, riding on the backs of ideological ignoramuses, arch capitalists (or thieves, really) are using the poor confused government as a milch cow.
Not maybe what the greens wanted, but hey, if it undermines Western democracy and destroys their societies, it is all the same. And it allows post destruction finger pointing that much of it was due to 'capitalist greed', which would be true.
So, to help Rod a little, here is what a sceptic actually thinks; the world has shown some warming. It is not dramatic yet and could be considered benign, but it is valid to ask what is driving it and come to understand the implications. Currently we don't know, but the cyclical patterns we see from Earth's history and our understanding of solar activity, it is probably mainly the sun.
What it definitely isn't due to is Man's output of CO2. Despite the recurring theme of the central importance of Man on Earth throughout history, we really aren't that significant. Strange really, the current Left attempts to undermine civilisation by saying that Man is heating the planet, is based on their view that Man is insignificant, Mother Earth is the important 'one'.
We know, by using not abusing science that CO2 concentrations have spiked some 400 years after global temperatures rose. This was the area for a big lie by Al Gore, who slipped the graph the other way round when talking about it on his gloriously (and no doubt intentionally) mis-titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Pollution however is unpleasant and probably largely unnecessary, but we are not looking hard enough for alternative solutions to our energy needs, partly because of the efforts of the Greens sucking funds to their organisations and projects. But also, partly due to the fact that a huge oil and gas infrastructure exists and that is not going to be rendered redundant overnight whilst politicians can still be manipulated and bribed!
So the 'conspiracy' is just the convergence of the activities of a large number of ideologically Left organisations working to undermine our current system of government and society. They have to work this way, to achieve power and then introduce their much better style of government, because no one would vote for it. What does that tell us?
And Global Warming might be happening and it might not. It is very probably something beyond our control and entirely natural if it is happening. There is an enormous amount of energy potential all around us (an apple contains the equivalent of a million tons of TNT) we just don't know how to get at it. And thanks to the Met Office and other harmful organisations, with the unthinking support of people such as Rod Liddle, we are not really looking into it.
Left ideology has been and continues to be, very harmful in societies, but for science to be subsumed by it is both unforgivable and dangerous.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Wet
It has been raining a lot recently, have you noticed? It is more than a flipping nuisance to many people flooded out of their homes. And insurance becomes a problem. I think that any homes that are built on land where earlier maps had the words 'flood plain' should not be the responsibility of insurance companies, when they do flood. I think the local authority should meet the bills.
But, and this is an important aspect, the planning authorities that OK'ed the build should be sacked. Oh and the builders should chip in too. You see these problems occur because no-one is ever held accountable, so there is no incentive for them to care about the outcome of their actions.
Of course, some notice of extreme weather conditions would be nice and the Met Office have a now much rehearsed dramatic warning system. Realistically they can only give a day or so warning, but a little is better than none.
But the Met Office, so lamentably wrong in their longer range weather forecasting, continue to insist that we should pay great attention to their pronouncements. We should expect more of these 'extreme' weather conditions, due to global warming they say. (Which wouldn't make them 'extreme', but hey, it's about drama).
Previously, the Met Office had insisted that global warming would lead to drought and warmer winters and that made sense. When this turned out not to be what was happening in reality (and ordinary people seem to lack the Left's ability to ignore reality) they had to modify their stance. Now, any weather is due to global warming. Hot summer, well yes of course. Snowy winter, global warming. Washout summer. Naturally. Just as the Met Office predicted.
It used to be a joke that the Met Office could improve their weather forecasting if they installed windows in their building, so poor were they. But instead they extended the ridicule by insisting that they understand weather in the finest detail and are able to accurately predict its course years into the future.
Not if it is going to rain in Basingstoke on a Saturday 15 years from now, but that the entire world is going to fry. Or freeze. Definitely, our computer models say so. They didn't predict the lack of any rise since 1997 and running their models backwards to predict weather we have already had, proves them to be completely hopeless. But, nevertheless, they are right. Apparently. It is our insistence on holding on to 'reality' that is the problem.
Like Marietta Higgs, who abused parents and their children in the 80's, the Met Office are in the grip of an ideology. They are blinded to the truth because they are not looking for it, they are looking for evidence to support what they already believe, already 'know'.
One of the most damning comments made about Higgs was they the technique she employed was, at the time she was using it, completely unverified and had not been subjected to scientific rigour. We were more serious about science then. But with global warming, so desperate are the ideologues that the Royal Society has even insisted the science is settled.
This is contrary to all the tenets of science. It is never settled. Sean Carroll in his recent book, The Particle at the End of the Universe says that scientists live to challenge theories and are delighted by the unexpected. I can assure him, those in the global warming sphere aren't! Some (at the University of East Anglia) are beyond this though. They know they are lying and try to hide evidence that contradicts their assertions.
The Met Office is a bunch of over-funded, over-paid amateurs, They are amateurs because they fail to apply scientific rigour to their work. A man in control of his senses would take a broom to them and start again.
But, and this is an important aspect, the planning authorities that OK'ed the build should be sacked. Oh and the builders should chip in too. You see these problems occur because no-one is ever held accountable, so there is no incentive for them to care about the outcome of their actions.
Of course, some notice of extreme weather conditions would be nice and the Met Office have a now much rehearsed dramatic warning system. Realistically they can only give a day or so warning, but a little is better than none.
But the Met Office, so lamentably wrong in their longer range weather forecasting, continue to insist that we should pay great attention to their pronouncements. We should expect more of these 'extreme' weather conditions, due to global warming they say. (Which wouldn't make them 'extreme', but hey, it's about drama).
Previously, the Met Office had insisted that global warming would lead to drought and warmer winters and that made sense. When this turned out not to be what was happening in reality (and ordinary people seem to lack the Left's ability to ignore reality) they had to modify their stance. Now, any weather is due to global warming. Hot summer, well yes of course. Snowy winter, global warming. Washout summer. Naturally. Just as the Met Office predicted.
It used to be a joke that the Met Office could improve their weather forecasting if they installed windows in their building, so poor were they. But instead they extended the ridicule by insisting that they understand weather in the finest detail and are able to accurately predict its course years into the future.
Not if it is going to rain in Basingstoke on a Saturday 15 years from now, but that the entire world is going to fry. Or freeze. Definitely, our computer models say so. They didn't predict the lack of any rise since 1997 and running their models backwards to predict weather we have already had, proves them to be completely hopeless. But, nevertheless, they are right. Apparently. It is our insistence on holding on to 'reality' that is the problem.
Like Marietta Higgs, who abused parents and their children in the 80's, the Met Office are in the grip of an ideology. They are blinded to the truth because they are not looking for it, they are looking for evidence to support what they already believe, already 'know'.
One of the most damning comments made about Higgs was they the technique she employed was, at the time she was using it, completely unverified and had not been subjected to scientific rigour. We were more serious about science then. But with global warming, so desperate are the ideologues that the Royal Society has even insisted the science is settled.
This is contrary to all the tenets of science. It is never settled. Sean Carroll in his recent book, The Particle at the End of the Universe says that scientists live to challenge theories and are delighted by the unexpected. I can assure him, those in the global warming sphere aren't! Some (at the University of East Anglia) are beyond this though. They know they are lying and try to hide evidence that contradicts their assertions.
The Met Office is a bunch of over-funded, over-paid amateurs, They are amateurs because they fail to apply scientific rigour to their work. A man in control of his senses would take a broom to them and start again.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
And again
After the guesswork on crime called the British Crime Survey, we have the Met Office (already famous for guessing what will happen to the world's weather in the long term) deciding that it would be perfectly OK to guess at the movement and density of the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland. This, despite the consequences of their utterances. It just goes to show that this country is completely out of control, leaderless. Supermarkets, utility companies you name it and you find that companies in the UK (particularly big ones, with inherent monopolistic situations) make bigger profits than overseas. No wonder so many of our utilities are foreign owned. There is the never ending clamour to tax us more heavily in the name of non-existent Global Warming. The police aggressively pursue crimes that attract Fixed Penalties. Such is the nature of our oppression.
Based on the need for self-preservation, New Labour has introduced a creed of no responsibility, no accountability. No matter what goes wrong, no one in 'authority' must ever be held accountable, there is always an excuse. So nothing ever gets better when bad practise is uncovered, pumping money into public services is to largely throw it away. It is why Sharon Shoesmith feels so aggrieved that she should be regarded as in some way responsible for the department she was in charge of; no Minister ever accepted such a rule under New Labour. Indeed, it would be unthinkable. Shoesmith was sacked not because of her careless attitude, though in the real world that was precisely the point, she was sacked because otherwise the blame may have moved up to Ed Balls and he is damned sure he is not taking responsibility for anything.
Corporate executives now casually sign contracts that entitle them to huge bonuses whether they succeed or fail. When the company does well, it is due to their leadership, when it doesn't it isn't their fault, they can't be held responsible for everything that happens.
Parliament clings to the etiquette that no member can accuse another of lying in the House. However, actually lying or committing fraud are not considered a problem at all. This all, these things spoken of here, have come to coalesce around the New Labour Project. A project to win power for it's own sake and to exercise that power by ignoring traditional rules and conventions, because they had no teeth, they were, to all intents and purposes useless. Lying to the House used to be a resigning matter, yet Blair has on many occasions, most spectacularly of course over Iraq and yet what has happened to him? Nothing. Nothing while he still held power and nothing since, despite his criminality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)