Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Bit short on details at the moment though.
- at least that boy works hard for his money
hes a grade A cunt
surely civil service grade B
scale , not pay grades
Wish I had a bunch of interesting stories to send to Private Eye.
Taking photographs, running websites, PAing, etc all actually involve working.
is that all you got?
Even CG's stayed away from this one...
Bit short on details at the moment.
any job you don't have to apply for with and compete against seven hundred other people is pretty cushy.
"“The vast majority have never worked for any political party,” he said, adding that most of them were currently working under fixed contracts to provide temporary maternity cover or because they had specialist skills."
That quote is talking about the majority of people employed on fixed-term contracts in the civil service, not the twenty-six of Dave's mates employed since the election.
have worked for the Tories and/or have no specialist skills. That "majority" doesn't exclude all of these so-called "vanity staff".
I'm just giving a lesson in interpreting sensationalist newspaper articles and statistics.
as a job that should be paid for by the state.........
and most of the other jobs seem to be party appointments rather than governmental so why are they on the civil service payroll? Doesn't seem right unless I've completely misunderstood how the civil service works.
People like Bernard Ingham and Alistair Campbell were on the civil service pay roll but were effectively party appointments. I can see how this photographer thing has come about, but it just looks grubby and they really should have spent five minutes thinking it through beforehand.
surely there must be many photographers who also photograph clothes and fashion.....so two of these jobs could be combined
this is outrageous, I thought they were sich already.....mind you thats how some rich people stay rich, they dont spend their own money on stuff for them, they find a fiddle to get someone else to pay.
Then again, every government has let its favourite cronies into coveted spots. I'd be more worried about the positions of power that people's mates are being drafted into than photographers etc. Still, not brilliant.
the jobs desrcibed are fairly crummy sounding, and they're fixed term, unlike the locked-down ones favoured by Gordon and his mates.
All just a bit embarassing really.
doesnt do 'joined up thinking' to be able to relate his entreaties to the public, the cuts that are made and these positions
"We're all in this together."
His was "No more boom and bust"
I'd love to hear someone complaining about their "crummy" job taking photos of Dave or running his website, when half a million public sector workers are being laid off. Cry me a fucking river.
cos we are now post expenses-gate
and because everything else is being pared to the bone.....yet here there is still some largesse.......
Cameron needs to demonstrate that we are 'all in it together' (although I realise that he wasnt being too sincere with this)
He cant ask people to do one thing and then do behaviours that are at odds with that (well he can, because people voted him to have utter power for 5 years, irrespective of his behaviour or performance......thats the beauty of our democrasy)
its a consequence of the way democracy/electoions are organised currently..
Cause and effect my dear boy....just because there is an itermediate stage...if the intermediate stage cannot influence the final result, then the people voted him in
(best regards the merivingion)
A party in power can choose to replace its leader whenever they want, in theory. Leadership challenges aren't uncommon. I bet quite a few Labour voters weren't actually voting for Gordon Brown to become PM.
for another 5 years anyway
but they now cannot unelect him for another 5 years
I assumed you meant the elected Conservative MPs choosing their leader, who will be PM if they are in power. That's who my "they" was referring to.
"(well he can, because people voted him to have utter power for 5 years, irrespective of his behaviour or performance......thats the beauty of our democrasy)"
I mentioned that in brackets and then you made that into a tangent by pulling me off on that
I'm not sure what the hell it's got to do with government 'appointments' to the civil service.
yes you did =D
the same attitude all the mps had with their expenses.....i.e. they dont consider what they look like to us, they dont consider if it sems shady and dirty......I am sure that most mps would also still do this sort of thing, because they think its different from expenses.
Unfortunately Cameron has demonstrated a big flaw in his understanding, and has scuppered something that he was going to rely on i.e. 'we're all in this together' because he was going to try to get people in this frame of mind to make the further cuts and despair seem more acceptable to groups so there would be less disputes.....he has weakened his ability to call on people to all act as if we are in it together
but please let's not equate this with the expenses scandal, which was much, much worse.
You're quibbling on the most ludicrous of minutiae. Let this one go.
Hardly. Run a quick list of the similarities and differences and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
you will clearly see that i did not equate this with the expenses.....i equated the mentality...in fact i was letting cameron off because i was equating his mentality with other mps (cross party) I was also trying to point out that 'ON TOP OF', and 'BEARING IN MIND' the expenses public outrage.
I did not equate it.....but there is a link in attitudes.....his attitude being that he didnt think that anyone would mind his wifes 'wardrobe stuff' being paid by taxpayers......just like some other mp didnt think that the public should mind paying for the duck house/moat stuff......as i said its about 'joined up thinking' you would hope a pm would be able to do that
Not sure you're as good at it as you are a breathing Simpsons quote encyclopedia, but full marks for effort at least
Should have probably done it that way in the first place, but at least he's backed down after initially saying he wouldn't.
"Mr Cameron still believes he was in the right to bring the pair into Whitehall and that they would have actually saved taxpayers money by improving efficiency"
How on earth could this be the case?
Pooling of photographer resources.
That makes partial sense.
It can't be that difficult to recruit a photographer, surely?
if the salary is going to be £35,000 regardless? The PM has worked with the guy before, knows he can do a good job, etc. He IS a professional photographer, not some numpty with a digital point-and-click who happens to be a Tory boy.
As mentioned above, these kinds of appointments are supposed to be for people with a specialist skillset - with the greatest of respect to the profession, I don't think that quite applies to a photographer... others should have been given the opportunity if it was going to be a civil service role.
We have no say in how the civil service operates its recruitment policies generally. In fact I'm sure the opposite is often the case: that they "promote" an existing civil servant to do a job which someone outside the civil service would be capable of doing much better for the same salary.
for EVERY SINGLE civil service job. This isn't obtuse, it's what I imply from your argument.
Are you basically saying "The civil service is unfair and unaccountable; deal with it"?
it's perfectly valid to make certain civil service job appointments without having a multi-applicant recruitment process. Nepotism may "never look good", but that doesn't mean it never means a good candidate gets the relevant job.
without having to go through the usual civil service process to show that they're the best person for it?
No, you're right, it's not even close.
not bloating the state with needlessly employees.