If you're the head of Southern Health, you get moved sideways into a brand new role on a quarter of a million pounds a year. This is obviously one Health Authority with no concerns over it's budgets or the feelings of the people it's supposed to serve. Southern Health boss Katrina Percy had new job 'created for her' - BBC News
Thus has it always been. When you get above a certain level it works like this: You do well, here's loads of money You do badly, here's loads of money You leave early, here's loads of money You join, here's loads of money Your share holders veto your remuneration package, here's loads of money Stinks
If she had any morals or indeed anything about her she'd resign immediately. She won't of course until there's a huge pay off on the table.
Apparently there are some people who just obdurately refuse to resign even when their position is totally untenable. Can anybody think of one?
When you say "untenable", do you actually mean "unpopular with the PLP but still enjoys the support of the vast majority of his Party's membership"? No. You don't mean that. Even though it is what you are effectively saying.
i suspect its JC thats being accused of being untenable, party members disagree, so by that reckoning its the PLP shysters that are untenable. maybe they should go and start they're own party. and be untenable elsewhere
UK party leaders have been appointed or elected under a wide variety of different systems down the years, but a common factor is that they do not hold office for a fixed term of years; rather, they remain leader until such time as they lose the confidence of their MPs. That is the way leaders' spells come to an end. Until now every leader of every political party in the House of Commons has been, by definition, the person who has the confidence of all, or at least most, of that party's MPs. It is not possible for a person to continue as leader in the absence of that confidence. A leader (including a PM) always resigns if a vote of no-confidence is carried against them, or even if it becomes clear they face losing a vote of no-confidence. The idea of a leader brazening it out and refusing to resign even after an overwhelming vote of no-confidence against them would have been an absurdity - until 2016. Mr Corbyn is not remotely interested in winning a general election. His project is wrecking the Labour party, and he's doing quite well at that.
I sell software into the NHS and you wouldn't believe the numpties that are easily on £70-90k a year with final salary pension and dont know their arse from their elbow! And be aware.... The primary care environment is being privatised at an alarming rate.
Another way to look at is that the PLP are out of step with the Labour Party membership who overwhelmingly support Corbyn. Corbyn and Momentum seem to have mounted a successful takeover of the Labour Party and they will, where they can, deselect the Blairites and anyone who has been critical of JC before the next GE. This could be described as democracy in action. What it also reflects is the dire state of party political democracy in the UK where the few dictate to the many through a system that is no longer in touch with the voters who have lost trust in their "representatives".
There's a thread of authoritarianism the runs right through the core of British politics. I suspect that it has its roots in feudalism and in the subsequent class system that still permeates British society, in its quiet way. It's the idea that someone, somewhere, knows what's best for you and you should not be permitted to interfere with the decision-making process in any fundamental way. We see this in the regular resistance on the part of the political class to the holding of referenda, and indeed in the current turmoil within the Labour Party, Effectively, the PLP is telling the wider Party to mind its own affairs whilst the PLP gets on with the business of being all Tory and electable. I realise that ordinary rank & file voters do not really understand the process of government. Certainly, if they try to interfere with process, there could be trouble. The problem is of course that politicians tend to see any and all devolution of responsibility or powers to the electorate as mere interference. Thus, you have a large part of the political establishment utterly opposed to the idea of Brexit on the basis that the electorate is not competent to hold an opinion on such matters. Whether or not you argue that this true, the fact is, in a democracy, there is no democratic alternative to allowing the public to speak on the matter. Compare this to another example: a populist movement dedicated to the principle of "free money for all". Whilst you could argue the electorate has the right to decide on this issue, it would be criminally negligent to make such a referendum easily available. Wrecking the economy by printing money, and potentially creating a more difficult economic climate in exchange for wresting control of your country from an anti-democratic institutuion are two very different things. However, you will find that the political class deems that the "free money proposal" and the principle of Brexit, are equivalent issues, in that both these matters are far too "complex" and important to allow the electorate to have a meaningful say. This is the essence of authoritarianism, the management of society in every single detail, whether or not such management is appropriate.
Shocking, but not surprising - the numpties that is. But I've seen no share offer, so privatised in what sense? There aren't many private sector final salary pension schemes left though and I think it's slightly more likely that a private sector numpty may be eased out.
It's worth listening to this morning's Today programme for a few minutes, from about 1hr 9 mins in from start: BBC Radio 4 - Today, 07/09/2016
