<snip>Besides, there used to be a thing called Ministerial Responsibility, but that seems to have lapsed under the current administration.
When it worked well, it ensured the minister made careful, thought-through decisions because they knew their job was on the line. And departments were careful and thorough too, because ministerial resignation shamed the department.
Now, though, blame gets passed down the line, and ministers stay put. Neither the minister or the department appears to have any skin in the game.
For cases handled by local health protection teams, 97.1 per cent of contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate in the week to September 30. In contrast, cases handled online or by call centres returned a 62.4 per cent successful contact rate.
The system is quite obviously not fit for purpose. And, government dogma to outsource to private sector mega-firms is a massive part of the problem.
"The world is about to be devastated, by a nucleaah... by a nucleaah... by a nucleeah..."
"Holocaust?"
"holocaust"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuWJO-CXE1U
[not the nine o'clock news]
Letter in the Guardian on the spreadsheet failure
The first letter puts forward a good summary of the responsibility. Basically there are four failures: the fact a spreadsheet was used, the fact that the system was never tested, the fact that the system was vulnerable to a single point of failure, and the fact that management didn't spot the discrepancy between the number of cases reported by the labs and the numbers that were making their way through the rest of the system.
As pointed out, you can make a case that Hancock was not personally involved in the chocie of the spreadsheet; you might even make a case that he did not have responsibility for line managing the people who line managed the people who did.
But as the letter points out: a functional management system would make sure that no such mistake led to a critical failure, and would catch it if it did. And these kinds of failures of management are the responsibility of the minister.
Letter in the Guardian on the spreadsheet failure
The first letter puts forward a good summary of the responsibility. Basically there are four failures: the fact a spreadsheet was used, the fact that the system was never tested, the fact that the system was vulnerable to a single point of failure, and the fact that management didn't spot the discrepancy between the number of cases reported by the labs and the numbers that were making their way through the rest of the system.
As pointed out, you can make a case that Hancock was not personally involved in the chocie of the spreadsheet; you might even make a case that he did not have responsibility for line managing the people who line managed the people who did.
But as the letter points out: a functional management system would make sure that no such mistake led to a critical failure, and would catch it if it did. And these kinds of failures of management are the responsibility of the minister.
There are some factual errors there, to be fair.
Firstly, the spreadsheet was not (as many seem to assume) being used in place of a database. It was being used to transfer data from .csv (comma separated values, basically data in text format) into the actual database. Questions should have been asked about why that intermediary form was required; it's generally as easy (or easier) to transfer data from .csv to a database compared with from .xls.
Secondly, the assumption is being made that the .xls format was used because the version of Excel was old - 2003 in fact. This conclusion is at best unproven; Office versions since 2003 all have the facility to write to and read .xls, and indeed to have it set as default. I was only this week creating an Apps for Enterprise (Office 365 in old money) installation configuration file, and the option to set .xls as the default Excel file format is still there.
It was not at all unusual when organisations started pushing out Office 2010 or 2013 to use the old file formats as defaults to ensure compatibility with colleagues running older versions. And that corporate image might well continue to be pushed out long after it was no longer necesssary if no-one stuck their hand up to query it. IT departments at a corporate level are often loathe to change any configuration that works because they get it in the neck if a change causes someone important a problem.
If Handcock did break his own curfew, it would be in a limited and specific way, as that is how the *government* operates with regard to laws, rules etc. etc.
Well, well. Someone, somewhere, is telling a Hideous Fib.
It couldn't possibly be a *government* minister, could it?
I daresay there's a notice in the Commons bar, reminding our gallant MPs of the rules, but some of them may need to go to Barnard Castle for an eye-test before they can decipher it...
... He hath not employed those people whom he ought to have employed; and he hath employed those people whom he ought not to have employed; And there is no health in us.
If Handcock did break his own curfew, it would be in a limited and specific way, as that is how the *government* operates with regard to laws, rules etc. etc.
As I recall, the HOC bar is not subject to the laws that licensed premises generally are. So Hancock wouldn't be in breach of his rule, but might be in breach of the Speaker's directive.
Yes, that may well be so, but (IF the story is true) we see yet again the *government's* contempt for the people to whom it should be setting a good example...
If Handcock did break his own curfew, it would be in a limited and specific way, as that is how the *government* operates with regard to laws, rules etc. etc.
As I recall, the HOC bar is not subject to the laws that licensed premises generally are. So Hancock wouldn't be in breach of his rule, but might be in breach of the Speaker's directive.
AIUI, and it may be I'm working from the Scottish rules, the curfew applies to all hospitality and not just licensed premises.
Mealy-Mouthed Mattie said today: ...[I agree] “very strongly” with “the purpose” of Rashford’s campaign, telling Sky News: “I think we’re all inspired by the way that he’s led that campaign. And the purpose is that no child should go hungry, and that’s right.”
His *government* has had 10 years to sort out child poverty. WTF are they doing about it, even now?
Comments
Now, though, blame gets passed down the line, and ministers stay put. Neither the minister or the department appears to have any skin in the game.
I'm sure Little Mattie could do with cheering up, as he always looks as though he's about to burst into tears, poor chap...
Nothing new here, then.
"The world is about to be devastated, by a nucleaah... by a nucleaah... by a nucleeah..."
"Holocaust?"
"holocaust"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuWJO-CXE1U
[not the nine o'clock news]
Perhaps someone should try to re-animate Gladstone, or Disraeli...even as zombies, they'd do a better job than the current Walking Dead.
It certainly does and I have also been the victim of vicarious liability even thoiugh the buck stopped with me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law
If it was that straightforward there would not be so many different judgements.
The first letter puts forward a good summary of the responsibility. Basically there are four failures: the fact a spreadsheet was used, the fact that the system was never tested, the fact that the system was vulnerable to a single point of failure, and the fact that management didn't spot the discrepancy between the number of cases reported by the labs and the numbers that were making their way through the rest of the system.
As pointed out, you can make a case that Hancock was not personally involved in the chocie of the spreadsheet; you might even make a case that he did not have responsibility for line managing the people who line managed the people who did.
But as the letter points out: a functional management system would make sure that no such mistake led to a critical failure, and would catch it if it did. And these kinds of failures of management are the responsibility of the minister.
There are some factual errors there, to be fair.
Firstly, the spreadsheet was not (as many seem to assume) being used in place of a database. It was being used to transfer data from .csv (comma separated values, basically data in text format) into the actual database. Questions should have been asked about why that intermediary form was required; it's generally as easy (or easier) to transfer data from .csv to a database compared with from .xls.
Secondly, the assumption is being made that the .xls format was used because the version of Excel was old - 2003 in fact. This conclusion is at best unproven; Office versions since 2003 all have the facility to write to and read .xls, and indeed to have it set as default. I was only this week creating an Apps for Enterprise (Office 365 in old money) installation configuration file, and the option to set .xls as the default Excel file format is still there.
It was not at all unusual when organisations started pushing out Office 2010 or 2013 to use the old file formats as defaults to ensure compatibility with colleagues running older versions. And that corporate image might well continue to be pushed out long after it was no longer necesssary if no-one stuck their hand up to query it. IT departments at a corporate level are often loathe to change any configuration that works because they get it in the neck if a change causes someone important a problem.
Is there a link to a news item, BTW?
It couldn't possibly be a *government* minister, could it?
I daresay there's a notice in the Commons bar, reminding our gallant MPs of the rules, but some of them may need to go to Barnard Castle for an eye-test before they can decipher it...
*reminds me of Private Eye , and the fan club of Neasden United FC - Sid & Doris Bonkers...
As in 'limited to MPs and their pals' and 'specifically' not permissible for anyone else.
As I recall, the HOC bar is not subject to the laws that licensed premises generally are. So Hancock wouldn't be in breach of his rule, but might be in breach of the Speaker's directive.
Nevertheless, the Speaker did indeed direct it to be treated in the same way as pubs etc., but apparently to no avail...
Mealy-Mouthed Mattie said today:
...[I agree] “very strongly” with “the purpose” of Rashford’s campaign, telling Sky News: “I think we’re all inspired by the way that he’s led that campaign. And the purpose is that no child should go hungry, and that’s right.”
His *government* has had 10 years to sort out child poverty. WTF are they doing about it, even now?
But who will then clean their bogs, and feed them on turtle soup and venison with a gold spoon?
(with acknowledgments to Charles Dickens, who would have had a thing or several to say about the Gang of Gobshites).