Skip to content

Ah, but……

“I didn’t see these particular cases. I don’t even know what they’re about, whether they come within the cohort of concern,” he told the BBC. “The idea that the director of public prosecutions would look at all four million is a bit unreal. I wasn’t aware of any of these cases.”

What you get the big money for – including that special act of parliament about your pension, the knighthood – is being responsible for everything your orgnaisation does. That’s the point of the job, the money and the gongs.

36 thoughts on “Ah, but……”

  1. What you get the big money for – including that special act of parliament about your pension, the knighthood – is being responsible for everything your orgnaisation does. That’s the point of the job, the money and the gongs.

    No, sorry Tim.

    Sir Keir, Lord Pigfucker, Rishi, etc. are not paid to manage outcomes on behalf of the public, they’re paid to tardwrangle us – the dumb plebs they’re replacing and immiserating as quickly as humanly possible.

    As long as us chumps sit quietly while they murder us with immigration and Net Zero, they will have earned their gongs from the man LARPing as our king.

    The forthcoming general election may be the last one in which British people get to nominally choose their own government. Ask yourself why Rishi and co. are completely unbothered by the imminent handover to Labour.

  2. From the Post Office scandal so far, it seems you can collect the big bucks and evade responsibility for just about everything by claiming that:
    * You weren’t told about it (and didn’t ask questions).
    * That you were lied to (and didn’t bother to verify what you were told).
    * You were busy doing something only tangentially related to the actual proper running of the business (like DEI and ESG).

    So, one for Tim – economists claim that the best people rise to the top and collect the largest share of the spoils (tournament theory). Seems at odds with the outcome seen here (see also Fred the Shred, Andy Hornby, Lin Homer and many others).

    The dead hand of government can’t be blamed for all these people’s screw-ups. Might I suggest that tournament theory doesn’t actually properly account for how these people rise to the top.

  3. This is what I call “the Robin Cook defence” again, isn’t it? “I didn’t do anything wrong, I just wasn’t in control of the department I was supposed to be in charge of.” In other words, it’s not malfeasance, it’s incompetence. So that’s all right, then.

  4. @Joe Smith
    People seek to maximise what they perceive as their own personal advantage. (That’s all, people.) Those who rise in organisations are those who best perceive how to do so. Whether that aligns with the best interests of the organisations is not a given. The “tournament”may simply be a contest over who rises to the top. It would depend on what the metric is for succeeding in the organisation. That may not align with what’s successful for the organisation itself.
    Very often organisations re-purpose themselves from serving the purpose they were intended for to serving the interests of they’re own administrators.

  5. “The dead hand of government can’t be blamed for all these people’s screw-ups. Might I suggest that tournament theory doesn’t actually properly account for how these people rise to the top.”

    I would suggest its the limited liability company that allows the owners to be divorced from the consequences of the actions of their employees thats the problem. The owners don’t care what the employees get up to as long as the profits roll in, and the senior employees can run the show pretty much as their own personal business without any of the responsibility. The whole system is set up to make sure that no-one ever faces the full consequences when there’s a f*ck up. Its why everything tends to massive mega-corps, as there is no detriment to getting so big no one person could ever possibly know whats going on everywhere. In the absence of the LLC we would have businesses at the size where one person (or maybe a board of directors) could keep and eye on everything, and would want to because it was their necks on the line if the employees f*cked up.

  6. @ BiS

    organisations re-purpose themselves from serving the purpose they were intended for to serving the interests of they’re own administrators.“.

    A very good description of Parliament, Civil Service, Charities, Judiciary, Media and the rest of the Blob.

  7. Joe Smith,

    “So, one for Tim – economists claim that the best people rise to the top and collect the largest share of the spoils (tournament theory). Seems at odds with the outcome seen here (see also Fred the Shred, Andy Hornby, Lin Homer and many others).

    The dead hand of government can’t be blamed for all these people’s screw-ups. Might I suggest that tournament theory doesn’t actually properly account for how these people rise to the top.”

    There’s no “system” for the private sector except for shareholders selecting a board/CEO etc. If the shareholders are retards, they might well hire a retard CEO. But then what is going to happen is that the company is going to go to the wall, the retards lose their money and the smart people who invested elsewhere win. This is the correct evolutionary order of things.

  8. It’s not purely due to the LLC, Jim. The public sector’s just as bad.
    Limited liability is supposed to be about limiting the liability of investors in a company to the amount they have invested. It’s our wonderful judiciary have extended the concept to include the actions of companies officers of companies.

  9. @ Western Bloke

    If the shareholders are retards, they might well hire a retard CEO. But then what is going to happen is that the company is going to go to the wall, the retards lose their money and the smart people who invested elsewhere win.

    Most people would question why the same faces always manage to fail upwards. There doesn’t seem to be any downside to destroying a business for the C suite or directors of a business. They’ll have taken millions in compensation for destroying the shareholder value and yet pop up in another well paid position to do the same there.

    Tim also talks about the principal/agent problem – a lot of shareholders are institutional (so drawn from the same pool of talent). These shareholders have no skin in the game and are happy to promote nonsense such as DEI/ESG and the like, along with inflating salaries “to attract the best people”.

    It’s now obvious that we’re at the mercy of people who are looting the country for their own benefit. Not breaking into Currys to steal big screen TVs but literally making off with the wealth of the country. Little difference to how those well connected with African dictators (or Hamas) make out like bandits.

  10. It occurs that strict liability would make the judiciary responsible for the effects of their decisions. And we couldn’t have that could we? Oh no….

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    Jim,

    In a sane world the shareholders who don’t keep an eye on management would lose all their money when the company went bust. But as the shareholder is the government with unlimited funds that can’t happen.

    Another argument for privatisation or direct control, not these half way houses that allow ministers to evade responsibility. Even worse, setting up not for profit schemes. MPs calling for nationalisation should know that that also includes responsibility not just kudos.

  12. “It’s not purely due to the LLC, Jim. The public sector’s just as bad.”

    Its the same problem though. No responsibility for the consequences of decisions. The LLC thing is just how that issue plays out in business. In government they don’t even have to create the legal fiction of a LLC they just give themselves immunity anyway by passing laws saying that government employees are immune from responsibility for the outcome of their decisions.

    This is the basic problem with the whole Western world – individuals have been made increasingly immune to the consequences of their actions, whether that be to their own welfare (ie they can behave in any manner they like and the State will always pick up the tab) or to the welfare of others – government employees making decisions that have significant negative effects (up to and including death) on others with no consequences for themselves. You ca’tn divorce people from consequences in this manner and not get bad outcomes.

  13. Joe Smith,

    “Most people would question why the same faces always manage to fail upwards. There doesn’t seem to be any downside to destroying a business for the C suite or directors of a business. They’ll have taken millions in compensation for destroying the shareholder value and yet pop up in another well paid position to do the same there.

    Tim also talks about the principal/agent problem – a lot of shareholders are institutional (so drawn from the same pool of talent). These shareholders have no skin in the game and are happy to promote nonsense such as DEI/ESG and the like, along with inflating salaries “to attract the best people”.”

    So don’t invest in them. There are plenty of businesses out there run by someone who has been there since they left school and worked their way up the ranks, or at least, have decades of experience in the sector. I avoid the Dido Hardings. It’s one of the easiest ways to screen out what I don’t want to invest in.

  14. There are plenty of businesses out there run by someone who has been there since they left school and worked their way up the ranks,
    That’s Alison Rose, isn’t it? Didn’t that work out well?
    I take a Parkinsonian view of businesses. They all, inevitably, end up being run for the benefit of the people run them. It’s just a natural progression. So you need a system destroys businesses as well as creates them. Which, of course, goes very much against the interest of those currently running businesses.

  15. @ Western Bloke

    So don’t invest in them.” – if only it were that simple. Investments are easy to deal with – I avoid the wokery and invest in decent high dividend paying value companies (oil & gas and tobacco). They are out of favour with the pension funds so you can pick them up for pennies in the pound compared to their real value (which will be realised when Net Zero inevitably fails).

    No, the problem is that I can’t avoid purchasing from these crappy woke companies. Sure, I could avoid TalkTalk (Dido) and go with BT or Virgin but they are just as bad.

    My bank (Co-Op) was headed up by a queer druggie vicar who made a complete bollocks of things losing £1.5 billion! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Flowers_(banker) for his other activities such as ignoring paedophiles in schools and rejecting alligations against Cyril Smith.

    Any suggestions (without becoming a hermit) how I avoid all the companies run by utter cockwombles?

  16. ” They all, inevitably, end up being run for the benefit of the people run them.”

    Because of the LLC problem. If the owners necks were on the line they wouldn’t let the staff behave the way they do. Its precisely because the shareholders are insulated from the consequences of their staff’s action that they just go ‘Meh’ and let them get on with it.

  17. Joe – interesting:

    Soon after the film of the apparent purchase of illicit drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of social services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys’ school, but had not informed parents or taken measures to close the school, was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse against the late Rochdale MP Cyril Smith,[10] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, “inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately.”[11]

    We might think the purpose of politics is to improve society somewhat, but the people involved are more interested in things like sex with children.

    Which is a problem.

  18. @ Steve

    There is no doubt that the apathy of the public is the primary reason we have arseholes like this in positions of power. As long as Auntie screens Strictly at the correct time, the country can go to shit for all the majority care.

    Doing something about the oxygen thieves that make up the electorate is the first step to solving the Blob problem.

    Fortunately, larger members of the Felidae family are equally effective against the Nomenklatura, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

  19. @Joe Smith

    ‘Investments are easy to deal with – I avoid the wokery and invest in decent high dividend paying value companies (oil & gas and tobacco). They are out of favour with the pension funds so you can pick them up for pennies in the pound compared to their real value (which will be realised when Net Zero inevitably fails).”

    I suspect that when net zero fails (which, as you say, is inevitable) oil, gas and any other energy companies will be nationalised. It’ll likely be done under “crisis conditions” and the “public anger” at the “profiteering fat cats” will be so great that shareholder compensation will be minimal. It’ll also probably be internationally coordinated.

    Lions will also be nationalised.

  20. “When Net Zero fails”

    If the Mystic Met Office are correct, the next couple of weeks are going to be pretty chilly with relatively low wind speeds, something not experienced across the UK for a few years at least. This might provide an ‘interesting’ (in the Chinese curse sense) test of the resilience of our energy systems.

  21. @ Fran Zeolites

    Nationalisation without compensation is certainly a risk. The Fat Comptroller (Potato Edition) would certainly advocate such a course of action.

    Question then is what is the best store of value for when the SHTF? Gold is fuck all use as it’s bulky, hard to people to assay during a transaction and being shiny isn’t all that useful. Bitcoin will be dead when renewables aren’t providing enough power to run the Internet. Cash under the bed will be worthless unless you like using a wheelbarrow to purchase a loaf of bread.

    Fags and booze perhaps?

  22. Clovis Sangrail: I was hoping someone might mention lions…

    Would you settle for Mrs Packletide’s Tiger?

  23. @Joe Smith “Question then is what is the best store of value for when the SHTF?” Ammunition. Especially 5.56 mm. (This is for the USA. YMMD.)

  24. “I suspect that when net zero fails (which, as you say, is inevitable) oil, gas and any other energy companies will be nationalised. It’ll likely be done under “crisis conditions” and the “public anger” at the “profiteering fat cats” will be so great that shareholder compensation will be minimal. It’ll also probably be internationally coordinated.”

    I often think the same about food production (being a farmer). If there ever comes a time when food is in short supply and food prices go through the roof there’s no way the State will allow private individuals to make out like bandits on the back of it. Farming would be nationalised in a trice in such circumstances. They wouldn’t buy the land, or try and farm it themselves, that would just result in a National Food Service which would manage to produce even less and cost more. They’d just control the output prices, as was done during the war. We’d be forced to sell our produce to the State at fixed prices, and there would probably be controls on what we could or couldn’t produce. Farmers who failed to do as directed would have their land taken away from them and given to more pliable ones, again as happened in WW2. Many farmers think that one day they’ll be driving around in Rolls Royces because food will be like gold dust, I tell them to forget it, we’d never be allowed to benefit in such circumstances. There never will be a payback period for all the years of sh*t prices, the moment things look really tight the State will step in and take control of the whole process.

  25. @ Jim

    Never mind, perhaps holding onto potential residential development land despite farming it being uneconomic will come good for all you farmers.

  26. “As a Kulak, you’ll just be liquidated”

    I doubt it, they’ll need people stupid enough to wallow around in the mud and shit to actually produce the food.

  27. “Aah, so, local councillors?”

    Have you seen local councillors? They’re usually the sort of people who can’t tie their own shoelaces.

  28. Farming is a very practical business. You’re not going to get much food produced by Karen from HR and a series of ‘diverse’ graduates. But it’d be amusing watching them try, as long as it was from somewhere with a slightly more secure food supply.

  29. @Jim..

    Indeed. ISTR that a Chinese bloke “Mao-somebody-or-other” tried it, and managed to kill about 50 million from starvation..

  30. I did note that, at the start of the Ukraine war, Putin made sure to point out that Russia was again an exporter of grain. As of course was Ukraine.

    So he wouldn’t need food from the West to carry on the war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *