The Politics Thread 2020

[ramesses]

2 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

I disagree, this constant barrage of aggressive questioning is appalling and it achieves nothing. 100% challenge things but the current SOP seems to just be aimed at tripping someone up. So the MSM can come back and vilify whoever made the statement. All it achieves is a closing of ranks and a refusal to say much at all. I agreed with an earlier poster who said that the target could have been communicated better but it wasn’t and now the  pack are gathering. I would much rather a more open and understanding press pack who understand that the government are dealing with something completely unique and that would enable the government to feel comfortable saying.  ‘Do you know what, we tried and got this wrong‘. Without the finger pointing, resignation demanding that would follow. Now we listen to a completely inane hour of sound bites and ridiculous questions that are not answered anyway. What would you rather? What we have today or an open discussion between adults? Something has to give. 
Piers Morgan is the classic example of everything the press has become. Shocking drivel from an ego maniac who is only interested in himself and bigging himself up. Step forward now the BBC, C4 and Sky who seem to think this is acceptable and are doing the country a great service. 

There’s always an opportunity to have a good rant about ‘the media’ and then throw in a few  examples as if that represents ‘the media in general’. Anyone can do that. It’s easy.

I don’t watch the briefings and I have only ever watched about 2 or 3 minutes of Piers Morgan, which was enough. If you find that kind of stuff annoying, overly aggressive, or if there’s too many ‘gotcha’ questions, then don’t watch. There’s also a lot of garbage in sections of the mainly right wing print media. The UK is infamous for it. I don’t bother with it. It’s easy to avoid.

On the other hand, most people on this thread tend to post up links from the BBC news website, the Guardian, and the Times and other similar sources because most people see them as solid and reputable. I often work a bit late so tend to watch TV news programmes later in the day on either BBC or C4 (I don’t have Sky). At that time of day the news programmes are usually more thoughtful and have space to explore the issues a bit more.

Things haven’t changed that much with the media. They have a bit less respect for authority, just like the rest of us – but there’s no anti-ERG government agenda. However, the current bunch of muppets do need to up their game quite a bit. Plucking a daft target out of thin air and then trying to pretend the target wasn’t about what you said it was is embarrassing to watch. Hiding in fridges is not a good look either.

[FindernRam]

34 minutes ago, ramesses said:

Plucking a daft target out of thin air

Any half decent Project or People Manager will at some time have given the team a "stretch" target to work to. It motivates the team and will make more progress than if you just let things drift.

The testing thing got off to a slow start but with all the publicity is ramping up big time even if it misses by a day or so. I have no doubt we are much further ahead as a result of the headline number than we would otherwise have been.

[Stive Pesley]

I'm kind of enjoying how angry some people are getting at the way the media are laying into the government over stuff, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Trying to trip them up, rather than reporting facts etc Spinning stuff to generate outrage etc

I mean, can you imagine?

 

 

[Angry Ram]

52 minutes ago, ramesses said:

There’s always an opportunity to have a good rant about ‘the media’ and then throw in a few  examples as if that represents ‘the media in general’. Anyone can do that. It’s easy.

I don’t watch the briefings and I have only ever watched about 2 or 3 minutes of Piers Morgan, which was enough. If you find that kind of stuff annoying, overly aggressive, or if there’s too many ‘gotcha’ questions, then don’t watch. There’s also a lot of garbage in sections of the mainly right wing print media. The UK is infamous for it. I don’t bother with it. It’s easy to avoid.

On the other hand, most people on this thread tend to post up links from the BBC news website, the Guardian, and the Times and other similar sources because most people see them as solid and reputable. I often work a bit late so tend to watch TV news programmes later in the day on either BBC or C4 (I don’t have Sky). At that time of day the news programmes are usually more thoughtful and have space to explore the issues a bit more.

Things haven’t changed that much with the media. They have a bit less respect for authority, just like the rest of us – but there’s no anti-ERG government agenda. However, the current bunch of muppets do need to up their game quite a bit. Plucking a daft target out of thin air and then trying to pretend the target wasn’t about what you said it was is embarrassing to watch. Hiding in fridges is not a good look either.

You're missing the point. I want to know what is going on, i don't want it filtered in anyway or questions not answered and the current situation prevents that.

I don't listen to the briefings everyday and yes I turn off when I have got the headlines.

[i-Ram]

46 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'm kind of enjoying how angry some people are getting at the way the media are laying into the government over stuff, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Trying to trip them up, rather than reporting facts etc Spinning stuff to generate outrage etc

I mean, can you imagine?

Yeah, you have form for starters.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

Any half decent Project or People Manager will at some time have given the team a "stretch" target to work to. It motivates the team and will make more progress than if you just let things drift.

The testing thing got off to a slow start but with all the publicity is ramping up big time even if it misses by a day or so. I have no doubt we are much further ahead as a result of the headline number than we would otherwise have been.

Having been both a Project and People Manager I agree although the stretch target does have to be achievable otherwise it will demoralise and demotivate. So, if the target is 100,000 but there was never a chance we were going to hit it and, say, only managed 50,000 then it's not a good stretch target.

However, I'm with you. If we miss the target date by a day or two there is no need to crucify the government. Equally, if we only manage to hit say 90,000, well it's a shame not to have hit the stretch target but no need to giving anyone too much of a hard time. It was, what we used to call a BHAG (big hairy audacious target) and we didn't quite make it. If we'd set the target lower, say at 75,000 per day, we might have smashed that and achieved 80,000.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'm kind of enjoying how angry some people are getting at the way the media are laying into the government over stuff, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Trying to trip them up, rather than reporting facts etc Spinning stuff to generate outrage etc

I mean, can you imagine?

 

 

It’s not party political, left or right it pisses me off..

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, ramesses said:

I don’t have a problem with the media here given that they seem to be asking relevant questions about why, during a health crisis, the government’s own testing target was (apparently) plucked out of thin air by the most senior government minister responsible for the nation’s health – and also for asking relevant questions about why, since the target was announced, the government has been trying to shift the target from being about ‘actual tests’ to ‘a capability’ to ‘an aspiration’.

More muppet government than muppet media.

It would have been just that. Happens all the time in business, but is actually a sensible strategy poorly explained. Given we were running at what 2,000 test per day? when the target was announced, you needed a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) to rally everyone around "in the name of".

 

Was it the "right" number - almost certainly not. But when you get to the end and look where you are, we will be surely testing many more than 2,000 per day. So it's classic behavioural "nudge" theory.

 

The alternative is to do lots and lots of analysis and debating to come up with the "right" answer and meanwhile the testing levels continued to languish in the low '000s as nobody has set a target at all.

[Van der MoodHoover]

14 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Having been both a Project and People Manager I agree although the stretch target does have to be achievable otherwise it will demoralise and demotivate. So, if the target is 100,000 but there was never a chance we were going to hit it and, say, only managed 50,000 then it's not a good stretch target.

However, I'm with you. If we miss the target date by a day or two there is no need to crucify the government. Equally, if we only manage to hit say 90,000, well it's a shame not to have hit the stretch target but no need to giving anyone too much of a hard time. It was, what we used to call a BHAG (big hairy audacious target) and we didn't quite make it. If we'd set the target lower, say at 75,000 per day, we might have smashed that and achieved 80,000.

I missed your post and wrote a similar...........clearly if he'd announced a 1m per day target everyone would have thrown their hands up and simply sad "can't be done"

but its BHAG not BHAT so its a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.....?

 

Can anyone confirm whether the 100,000 "target" is for capacity or for tests carried out? Or is the NEXT BHAG, to get the usage of the capacity up to 99% from whatever it currently is?

[Stive Pesley]

16 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

It’s not party political, left or right it pisses me off..

Yeah we couldn't shut you up complaining about it when it was Labour being crucified by the media in the election campaign

46 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Yeah, you have form for starters.

What? as a member of the media? Try harder pal

[maxjam]

Say what you want about our press, but at least they always turn up fully clothed ?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-us-news-reporter-appears-on-air-without-trousers-in-live-wfh-fail-11980336

[Tamworthram]

16 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I missed your post and wrote a similar...........clearly if he'd announced a 1m per day target everyone would have thrown their hands up and simply sad "can't be done"

but its BHAG not BHAT so its a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.....?

 

Can anyone confirm whether the 100,000 "target" is for capacity or for tests carried out? Or is the NEXT BHAG, to get the usage of the capacity up to 99% from whatever it currently is?

Oops. Good spot. I did say BHAG but clearly I can't spell target. You're right, it is Goal of course.

I can't remember. I guess they'll say capacity rather then either actual tests or people tested (given a number of people seem to be tested more than once so 100,000 tests doesn't mean 100,000 people were tested) and some folk will focus on slating them for moving the goal posts (see what I did there?) rather than achieving the massive, if overdue,uplift in testing.

[Comrade 86]

Some seriously ducking idiotic posts recently. As if folk are really hoping that testing targets and those for controlling the spread of the virus are not met. Because folk of a different political persuasion really want to see folk die just to make a point, right!?! Absolutely pathetic.

You all need to get a ducking grip and actually think about what you're posting. It says a deal more about your character, or lack of it, than it's intended targets.

[GboroRam]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Say what you want about our press, but at least they always turn up fully clothed ?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-us-news-reporter-appears-on-air-without-trousers-in-live-wfh-fail-11980336

That's fantastic! ? 

[Rev]

46 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Say what you want about our press, but at least they always turn up fully clothed ?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-us-news-reporter-appears-on-air-without-trousers-in-live-wfh-fail-11980336

BHAG.

Big haired arsed gentleman.

[Norman]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I missed your post and wrote a similar...........clearly if he'd announced a 1m per day target everyone would have thrown their hands up and simply sad "can't be done"

but its BHAG not BHAT so its a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.....?

 

Can anyone confirm whether the 100,000 "target" is for capacity or for tests carried out? Or is the NEXT BHAG, to get the usage of the capacity up to 99% from whatever it currently is?

The other problem with the target isn't really anything to do with the government. 

As I work in a prison, I could have been tested for a while. I haven't. Because occupational health who I have to go through are poo. So I don't know anybody where I work who has been tested. 

If it was easier, I'd have been tested, so would everyone else and the targets know doubt would have been met.

 

[Bob The Badger]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'm kind of enjoying how angry some people are getting at the way the media are laying into the government over stuff, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Trying to trip them up, rather than reporting facts etc Spinning stuff to generate outrage etc

I mean, can you imagine?

 

 

If you mean can I imagine that people get pleasure out seeing others confused, angry and lashing out?

Then no, not really.

But, please do let me know what I'm missing.

[ramesses]

To all the many BHAG fans on the forum…

This is all very well for a sales manager and perfectly fine for Matty boy to use in private behind the scenes.

But this was an announcement of a stupidly specific target to the media by the health minister that was intended for the wider public. Senior ministers then followed this up with sly changes about what the target originally meant. Then some blame the media for questioning this.

It’s poor politics - which was the point I was making.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yeah we couldn't shut you up complaining about it when it was Labour being crucified by the media in the election campaign  

Ahem I believe I did post something along those lines back in the day. Don’t let that get in the way though 

[GboroRam]

20 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

BHAG.

Big haired arsed gentleman.

 

13 minutes ago, ramesses said:

To all the many BHAG fans on the forum…

I think you need to move this to the Forest thread.