"we're all in this together"

[worm]

But you DO agree with banning people - you stated it explicitly in this thread in the last day or two, and you've stated it again below.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Though its interesting that one tory disagrees with another when the policy is just ideology and they both adhere to the same ideology. It's almost as if not everything can be simplified as just ideology

As I've already made clear, political reality is always in the mix. It's not possible for any ideology to be rolled out as-is, as any ideology is only workable with a perfect situation around it.

[eFestivals]

I agree with the policy of banning for a reason, not banning unrelated to reasons. But both you and the tories agree with scrapping ID cards but with different reasons so my analogy is invalid.

corrected for you.

No. I disagree with the policy of indiscriminate banning and agree with the policy of discriminate banning.

and I disagree with scrapping ID cards because it's state interference and agree with scrapping ID cards cos they're a waste of money.

Spot the difference? Nope, me neither.

But you and the tories both agree with an indiscriminate scrapping of ID cards.

no we don't. They're not scrapping ID cards indiscriminately, and neither am I.

There is no specification as to the type of person to be affected by the policy as it applies to everyone.

Yet there is a specification as to why, so it's a policy that's agreed with only when agreeing with that specification.

One day you might get a brain, but not yet.

[worm]

corrected for you.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Hardly.

I agree with discriminate banning therefore the analogy cannot be applied to agreeing with indiscriminate scrapping.

But it's not "indiscriminate scrapping".

"Indiscriminate scrapping" would be scrapping for no reason. There is a reason, jusat as there is a reason for why people get banned.

I agree with your policy of discriminate banning. My reason for doing so may be different to yours. Ergo, the policy is not ideologically bound.

[

But it is.

Your agreement with people being banned in certain circumstances is bound to the ideas you have - an ideology - of when it's correct to do so.

Just as my agreement with scrapping ID cards is bound to the reasons of why they're being scrapped.

As ever, you're using words you don't understand. Go look up what "ideology" means.

[worm]

But it's not "indiscriminate scrapping".

"Indiscriminate scrapping" would be scrapping for no reason. There is a reason, just as there is a reason for why people get banned.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No it wouldn't be. Indiscriminate scrapping would be scrapping without discrimination i.e. scrapping everything without discrimination; prejudice; specification.

To believe in the scrapping of ID cards requires zero discrimination as it means that all ID cards are to be scrapped without exception.

wrong. It requires discrimination against ID cards - and such discrimination only exists for reasons (after all, you've been unable to present anything which happens for no reason).

There is no essential difference between "all" and "some" - they are both based only in reason.

You can have a million reasons for agreeing with any of these policies, which shows that ideology is not specific to the particular policy.

but as I keep saying - while you keep trying to tell me that that my opinion is different to what I'm telling you (do I need to pull out a recent quote of yours? ) - I do not agree with their policy.

I do welcome the result of their policy - something entirely different.

The point I was so obviously making was that it doesn't have to be.

Only true for the person with no ideas.

Is that you then?

[worm]

wrong. It requires discrimination against ID cards

[llcoolphil]

As I've already made clear, political reality is always in the mix. It's not possible for any ideology to be rolled out as-is, as any ideology is only workable with a perfect situation around it.

[eFestivals]

So some policies are driven by political reality and some policies are driven by ideology. Thanks - that is EXACTLY the point I made to you about which you have made several posts in several threads disagreeing. Renind me again who does and who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Shame you've failed to understand my meaning. Not that.

They're all driven by ideology, while tempered by political reality.

So they're all ideological, but some are smaller steps than others.

[eFestivals]

Of course it does. I was talking about scrapping ID cards.

Yes, but those reasons cannot be said to ideological because people can agree for an infinite number of reasons.

Yet you agree with a policy of scrapping ID cards, as do they. Ergo, it's not their policy is it.

No, you support a policy that they also support. You just have different reasons for supporting it. Ergo, the policy is not bound by tory ideology.

Something that is said to be ideological has to pertain to a specific ideology. An idea is not synonymous with an ideology.

You're twisting things to make what you say work. You are not comparing like with like.

And you're 100% wrong with your definition of ideology. I refer you to any dictionary.

And so yet again, if you had the first idea of what you were talking about, we wouldn't be here.

[bunique]

*bump*

Up to 700 jobs to go at work, one of which is likely to be mine (chances are me and two others will be pooled and have to go for the two available posts). Sigh. Any HR boffins about?

[sifi]

Up to 700 jobs to go at work, one of which is likely to be mine (chances are me and two others will be pooled and have to go for the two available posts). Sigh. Any HR boffins about?

[eFestivals]

There's recruitment freezes at many councils.

Why have none of these councils sacked their recruitment officers?

[bunique]

Your public sector, aren't you Bunique?

In my experience working for West Sussex County Council and going through restructures, the process tends to be you being re-interviewed for your job once your new bosses are in situ, and then they make the call based on those interviews and your previous performance.

Are they offering voluntary redundancy? If your colleagues have been there for a while, one of them might be tempted to take that instead.

They'll be plenty of consultations as to the process in the interim. My main concern would be - and it has played out this way in the past - that those with longer service cost more to pay off, and as such they tend to lay off the people with less service, as they've got a specific cost saving to make.

[bunique]

There's recruitment freezes at many councils.

Why have none of these councils sacked their recruitment officers?

Edited November 2, 2010 by bunique

[sifi]

There's recruitment freezes at many councils.

Why have none of these councils sacked their recruitment officers?

[sifi]

I am indeed. I'm also due to start maternity leave during the consultation period and will still be on ML on the date redundancies are due to kick in and not due to return until Sept 2011-ish. I don't think they are offering any VR at this stage although if they did one colleague might consider it. I spoke to ACAS last night who pointed me in the direction of some regulations applying to maternity leave and redundancy so am trying to get my head around what that might mean. It's a right palaver and causing a horrendous atmosphere at work already!

Edited November 2, 2010 by sifimaster

[eFestivals]

HR bods seem to be the only ones kept in a job right now as they advise the rest of us what the hell we're meant to be doing!

I'm talking specifically about recruitment officers - who do just the recruitment side of things.

[sifi]

I'm talking specifically about recruitment officers - who do just the recruitment side of things.

[bunique]

When do you go on mat leave? March, for six months?

Whenever I've been involved in a major restructuring process, the number of maternity cases increases by at least 300%. I bet your HR department is starting a sweep-stake on how many folk get pregnant.

[Kizzie]

Oddly enough I'm hanging around at the moment in between interviewing prospective candidates for 4 posts. Yes, there is a recruitment freeze in all authorities at present and I'm interviewing internal candidates.

There will be very little in the way of redundancy packages offered as this is far too expensive, there will be no early retirement packages either….again too expensive. What will happen is that vacancies will be filled internally, then staff will be performance managed out of the service as they fail to perform to standards. This will also be the case with staff coming up to retirement who now no longer have to retire at 65, they will be performance managed out.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Kizzie

[sifi]

Oddly enough I'm hanging around at the moment in between interviewing prospective candidates for 4 posts. Yes, there is a recruitment freeze in all authorities at present and I'm interviewing internal candidates.

There will be very little in the way of redundancy packages offered as this is far too expensive, there will be no early retirement packages either….again too expensive. What will happen is that vacancies will be filled internally, then staff will be performance managed out of the service as they fail to perform to standards. This will also be the case with staff coming up to retirement who now no longer have to retire at 65, they will be performance managed out.

[RABun]

Oddly enough I'm hanging around at the moment in between interviewing prospective candidates for 4 posts. Yes, there is a recruitment freeze in all authorities at present and I'm interviewing internal candidates.

There will be very little in the way of redundancy packages offered as this is far too expensive, there will be no early retirement packages either….again too expensive. What will happen is that vacancies will be filled internally, then staff will be performance managed out of the service as they fail to perform to standards. This will also be the case with staff coming up to retirement who now no longer have to retire at 65, they will be performance managed out.

[Kizzie]

Guess you are going to be busy with unfair dismissal work then?