Let us apply this logic then

God, he’s prolix, isn’t he?

And completely ignores the idea that politicians are supposed to be generalists, who like a general manager must take decisions on the basis of limited knowledge and information. He also ignores the fact that senior politicians have staff and civil servants, expected to be experts in their fields, to brief and advise them.

He really needs to read up on Dunning-Kruger and then take an honest look in the mirror.

Will never forget during the China Virus panic, all the Dem governors & mayors claimed, “we’re following the science” or perhaps it was “The Science”. Somehow, the media never asked them how The Science communicated with them. Did it come to them in a dream? Did they enter a fugue state? Did they smoke or ingest any substances in order to be receptive to The Science?

Apparently, when The Science communicates with you directly there’s no need at all to see if there are differing opinions about the best course of action.

Norman,

But that still requires *some* experience in the area. Is the expert you’ve got actually a good bloke, or a bit of a twat. Is the bloke in charge of railways telling you that you need more capacity because you do, or because he just wants a bigger train set to play with (almost certainly the latter).

And bear in mind that the people in charge of railways were appointed by an earlier incarnation of a minister who didn’t have a clue about rail.

In fairness I’d argue this is by some way his most coherent post. The War in Ukraine needs to end immediately and a new strategy be developed for engagement with Russia in the longer term – if that involves military confrontation then we will need to rearm. (Though to me Iran and associated Muslim enemies are a far more pressing threat than Russia)

Obviously both Steve and I are used to being accused of being Putin’s shills but when even arguably the least competent individual extant in Cyberspace can see you have no plan or long term strategy other than an endless meat grinder, It’s perhaps time for those who back this misadventure to own up to their failure and move on.

Norman – there aren’t many more verbose or prolix than that man. He really needs to get an LLM to edit the posts for him.

Tim

I thought this a more appropriate post from the Sage to Fisk. ‘What are we going to do when the water runs out?’

What happens when the water runs out? It’s an important question because it looks likely that it might.

There are two scenarios where this question is relevant. One is who’s going to be supplying water to London very soon if Thames Water fails, as some are now seriously talking about.

I’d imagine the government or another supplier will step in to fill the breach albeit given the left wing’s threat of nationalization then private investors are running skittish even before the tax hikes in the budget

New investigations into Thames Water suggest that it is running the company on the basis of software first written in 1989. I wouldn’t put too much bet on the fact that that is in great order. And there’s a lot of equipment inside Thames Water, £23 billion worth apparently, which has not been properly physically maintained as well, where there is a backlog of repairs to do, which means that at any point in time, the water supply in parts of London could fail.

The notion that the public sector is at the cutting edge of technology and modern working practices is an interesting one of course

This report may be wrong. It may be that Thames Water has, in fact, got totally robust IT systems. But it seems unlikely because clearly somebody’s been doing quite a lot of digging to come up with this information. And it is apparent that Thames Water has not, because of its desire to maximise profits at cost to the consumer, been undertaking the sorts of repairs that are necessary to its kit. We, therefore, face the real prospect that Thames Water could financially fail but simultaneously fail to deliver water to our capital city.

And of course the excessive demand created by 25 million people being brought in for political reasons hasn’t had any impact.

How do we manage that? I genuinely have no idea. But maybe the sheer challenge of dealing with that is something that we have to face.

An admission of limits – twice in a day? Did he fall out of bed the wrong side this morning?

We have to come to terms with the fact that a world in which financialisation has been more important than the delivery of goods or services, at least as far as the City of London is concerned, has brought us to the point where something so absolutely critical to human life may not be available in the largest financial services centre in the world. The paradox is almost unbelievable and yet it could happen.

Again anyone who has dealt with the UK public sector will know that the absolute last thing on their mind is the delivery of goods and services. Doing the bare minimum and clocking off early are always priorities. And I don;t have a choice whether to contribute to them, unlike a water company…

There is another way in which this crisis might become apparent. And that is around the world, many parts of the world are getting hotter. Very much hotter. And we know that water is disappearing.

We know that that is true in many areas in the Middle East, where lakes and whole rivers are just drying up.

Again driven by over population and over development. Makes me wonder why you’re so opposed to Israel as they seem to be doing a great job reducing the over population in that area.

We know that there are regions where there was once agriculture where there is no more.

Of course the converse is true. I very much doubt he has read Malthus.

We know that people can’t live in those areas for much longer if they are now. We know that the ability to find water underground is disappearing.

Therefore, there are millions and maybe billions of people who, at some time, are going to have to move because of a lack of water in this world.

Yes – the entire population of China and India are on their way. I thought Diversity was our strength?

This may be an immediate crisis for London if it happens in a way that is quite different from the way it is a crisis for the people of the Middle East and elsewhere where the water’s literally disappearing. But the net effect is much the same. There won’t be water to sustain life, and without that ability to sustain life, people are going to have to move.

I have no idea whether London will have to literally be evacuated so that people can move to areas where there will be sufficient water if it is not essential that they stay in the city.

I have no idea whether we can lay on extra resources quickly.

This isn’t an episode of Doctor Who by the way.

But what I do know is that there is no way that we can solve the problems of water supplies in places where it is too hot for that water to now exist, at least on the surface where people can access it. And if that’s the case, people will move. And we have to manage that.

I can’t see you getting a position as a lecturer in a science discipline even in one of the non-institutions that proliferate in the UK university sector

And so far, neither of these crises appear to be on the agendas of our governments or international organisations. And yet they are so fundamental that all we can conclude is that they are sticking their heads in the sand, almost quite literally in some cases, because they’re so frightened of the consequences of what is happening.

I have lost count of the number of campaigns urging people to save water just by the UK government alone, both by the water companies, local authorities and central government.

When will governments take water seriously is my question? If we don’t, we face crises of scales that we have not imagined since time began because as far as we are concerned, time began when we could access water.

I wouldn’t apply for a gig in a history department either

We have always needed it, and yet we may be denied it, and that is the result of financialisation and a failed neoliberal economic system that has created this outcome.

If you want a definition of failure, nothing could be stronger than that, but still these politicians are dedicated to the perpetuation of what has caused this problem. And that, in itself, is the crisis that we face.

There’s always, but always a neoliberal behind every problem.

Absolute gibberish – to the point where one questions if he isn’t suffering from premature senility.

“As far as I can see, the UK, the US, NATO and even the government in Kyiv have no clear idea between them as to what they are now trying to achieve in pursuing the conflict in Ukraine,”

I didn’t realise the Ukrainian government was “pursuing” the conflict; seems to me it had it imposed on it when Russia invaded, saying there was no such independent nation called Ukraine. Their reaction appears quite in keeping with every nation facing genuine, existential threat.

David (Ironman)

Yes – I see what you are saying but the roots of this conflict go way further back than the invasion – NATO encroachment on the border in total defiance of prior agreements. Yes of course Russia is a bastard etc but even given the fact the invasion is there what is the long term plan? Liberate the Donbas? Retake Crimea? How would this work? Expulsion of the natives? Occupation? I agree Russiais the aggressor but given our troops are training with broomsticks how are we going to provide either the men or materiel to stop them. Remember there are more diversity officers in the U.K. (across both sectors ) than army personnel at this point.

Lots of organisations have software going back to the 80s or even earlier. There’s nothing wrong with IBM mainframes, DB2, COBOL/CICS. It’s a robust load of tools to work with, and fine for things like customer billing. And over the decades, it’s been enhanced, bugs found, and it’s very robust. Which is why no-one wants to throw this stuff out. It’s a massive investment that works.

Absolutely true, but the software was written and maintained by people who understood it, who have now retired or been replaced by people from Bangalore who may or may not understand English.

As with the NHS, companies buy in physical kit which requires control software that runs on a PC or (for older stuff) a minicomputer. The manufacturer won’t upgrade it, why would they? So you end up with critical systems running on obsolete versions of OS and software that “just keep on running”, until they don’t.