I think that should go without saying Dave. …

Comment posted McCuish announces ‘coalition for progress’ by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.

I think that should go without saying Dave. Any action taken to assess performance to date and potential looking forward should be a proper and thorough process which views the roles, duties, actions and influences (and how these were responded to) that are relevant to any such review.

Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented

• If the new coalition is to be successful then something needs to be done about what are clearly very strained relationships between elected members and the corporate management team. Whether or not people agree that this Council has been failing under the current Chief Executive’s control is up for debate (I think most people on here know where I stand on the debate) however what can’t be denied is that member/officer relations are not what they should be.

  Depending on the nature of the CE’s contract the new administration will, fundamentally, have two options available to them. If she is on a fixed term contract which requires renewal at a set date then they would be able to replace her at that point if they felt she was not capable of performing her role competently. They may, of course, conclude that she is capable and agree on a contract extension.

  If she is on a permanent contract with no break point then the administration needs to assess whether her performance has been satisfactory and deal with this accordingly. In this scenario she would be treated the same way as any other employee and performance issues would be addressed via a proper performance management process (which could, and I stress could, result in dismissal if, after following a proper process, the performance doesn’t improve).

  Dealing with performance issues at director level is slightly different as the administration have no direct control over the appointment and removal of directors. They have (or should have) performance issues managed in the same way as any other employee however the problem here is that they report directly to the CE and if there are question marks over her competence then you could argue that she is not capable of managing the performance issues of those who report directly to her.

  What the new Administration need to consider is whether or not their opposition to issues such as the schools closures was because they were opposed to the policy, opposed to the lack of competence shown by Council officers during the consultation process and in the consultation papers, or a combination of the two. If they were opposed to the lack of competence to a material extent (and any other areas of competence amongst the senior staff) then they can’t be seen to duck their responsibility to challenge the CE and CMT and ensure they are accountable for their failings. Just because it happened under the previous administration’s watch does not mean the issue should be overlooked.

  Roddy McCuish says ‘The people of Argyll have given us a clear mandate for change in the way the work of this council is conducted.’ It is encouraging to hear those words and there is much talk of ‘change’ in the air’
  Recognition of the desire for change makes it crystal clear that change is required and part of that process has to be to identify what has gone wrong, or stood still for too long, and take corrective action. If that means removal of the CMT or close performance management of them then I urge the Administration to be strong and take the necessary steps.

Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  On the issue of accusing people of being fascists I, in a rare moment, agree with Malcolm due to the people in history who have, through their actions, defined the term (although its proper definition has doens’t necessarily mean you need to be a mass murderer).

  It is a little bit of double standards though because in another post you refer to Farage as ‘good old’ yet he descibed the protesters as ‘fascist thugs.’ So an offensive remark by him in your eyes Malcolm?

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Using violence against it is obviously contradictory however it is often the action of very last resort. It is a good line by Arden although worth putting it in the context of the play it comes from which focuses on military deserters who are sickened by a war they are being forced to be a part of. Apartheid and the America civil rights movement is a very different context where years of suppression, violence, and some of the most heinous acts were committed on people for no other reason than bitter inbred prejudice.
• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  The NIMBY, of all political persuasion, certainly isn’t a rare bird however their existence in place A, or of persuasion B, doesn’t detract from criticism of specific examples of it.

  I agree it is unsafe to use fringe views to represent a whole group and you make a fair point about the need for clarity in the overall ‘cause’. For me though, UKIP cause it not clear and I don’t see these issues as the views of a minority within the group, or a collection of rogue members.
  Your point about Alex Salmond’s potential reaction to similar treatment of one of his own party (or himself) is valid and is a point I made in an earlier post. At the risk of repeating myself (well not a risk as I am doing it!) I believe the best course of action would have been for him to openly state that he didn’t approve of the actions of the crowd and, in the same statement, making it clear that the group was not representing either the SNP or the Scottish independence movement.

  I am sure he, as any of us would, be shaken by such an experience. The fact that there was no actual physical violence doesn’t for a second mean anger/abuse at such close proximity is not hugely intimidating and a politician, irrespective of opinion, should be allowed to perform their role without being out in a position where they are fearful for their safety. Tony Blair would, almost definitely, face a similar reaction in certain places, as would a number of other politicians over the years. Like you I would argue that this is not the best way to express discontent. Only in a very small number of occasions would I condone taking protest to the point of physical intimidation and I reserve that to some of the most significant ‘upheavals’ in modern times (examples being the fight against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the US) – even then there would be a line I, personally, couldn’t step over.

  Drifting away from the point a little (although I must say it is refreshing to be debating something other than Scottish Independence or A&B Council!). My overall point is that I believe UKIP to be a party with an inherent bigotry at the core of it and this is clearly evidenced by the actions, statements, and affiliations of too many of its members for it to be brushed off as a the actions of a fringe minority. If the same number of statements (of the same nature) had been made by members of any of the mainstream parties (on both sides of the border) then they would face a far bigger backlash from the media and opposition supporters despite the actual percentage representation being far lower.

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Newsroom

  Writing this on phone so apologies for brevity. You are of course correct that every party has fringe nutters however it gets to a qiantity where the term ‘fringe’ no longer applies as it becomes tpo high a percentage of the party. Just today there is further issue with Otto Inglis being linked to the Letter Writers Guild who pleasantly refer to the Islam Tsunami.

  It is the consistent theme and the number of incidents tgat, fpr me, makes this more than a party with a few fringe nutters. They are a party with an odious core that corrupts any desire to be a civilised, compassionate and inclusive society.

  All that said I respect their right to be that way. I just hope society at large always sees them as the disgusting people they are.

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  You need to read a bit deeper than a manifesto which is basically a random collection of ideas pulled together to respond to ‘ten things that get up the nose of right wing Daily Mail readers.’ Even at that high level policy level there is little cohesiveness of policy that gives any suggestion that the policies can be realistically implemented or, most importantly, afforded.

  What is more relevant than the headline policies is the people in the party who would be attempting, and failing, to implement them. Farage himself is portrayed as this charismatic leader who, by supping the odd pint, and strategically lighting up a fag, is representing the common man as well as appealing to the man on the street scared for his job because of all these pesky foreigners. They portray themselves as a party putting Britain’s interests first and bravely fighting to preserve Britain’s place on the world map (given that their opposition to Scottish independence is a little hypocritical as the SNP are only after what Scotland what they claim to be for Britain). However that battle for Britain only seems to take place when Farrage can take advantage of a variety of television programs as their MEP’s seem to find it rather incovnetnt to actually show up at the European Parliament which begs the question ‘where are they actually carrying the fight for Britain’s future to?’

  They vehemently refute any accusation of bigotry despite umpteen links with a number of the far right parties across Europe. UKIP is a member of Europe of Freedom and Democracy and Farage certainly was co-President of the group (may well still be), the other president being Francesco Speroni who charmingly said of Anders Breivik that he was someone with ideas that are in defence of western civilisation. When another group member said that Breivik has some excellent ideas Farage, in fairness wrote to him to demand the comments be withdrawn of UKIP would pull out of the group. Not only were the comments not withdrawn, the person who said them (Mario Borghezio) added to them and further stated ‘Long live the Whites of Europe, long live our identity, our ethnicity, our race… our blue sky, like the eyes of our women. Blue, in a people who want to stay white.”

  Was Farage good to his word? No. UKIP didn’t withdraw, he carried on his role as co-president and UKIP still have many members in it and a UKIP MEP was thrown out of UKIP because she refused to be a part of EFD due to what she said were ‘extremist’ views.

  Meanwhile Farage has made a lot of noise about UKIP being the only party in the country who ban BNP members from joining. That is factually correct however easily side stepped by the party when the UKIP head of Policy invited the British Freedom Party to join UKIP – that is the party made up almost entirely of members of the BNP who set up their own party. When UKIP was asked to explain why this had happened despite their policy the answer was that their Head of Policy has been in the US and was not ‘up to speed with current policy.’ So the Head of Policy is not up to speed on policy because he was out of the country for a handful of weeks – what bloody rubbish.

  Even Alan Sked who founded the party now descibes them as extraordinarily right-wing and states they are devoted to “creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants”. It is worth remembering that at the time of the general election when Britain (who UKIP are dedicated to protecting) was facing the worst economic crisis since the late 1930s UKIPs flagship policy was banning the burqa.

  Even if you do support their line on immigration the fact they happily dilute it in their manifesto to avoid criticism points at a party who will whore themselves to the voter where necessary but equally able to bin that manifesto should they get any power. They have a ‘Pocket Guide to Immigration’ in their manifesto which used to promise to “end support for multiculturalism and promote one, common British culture”. They quickly removed it when it attracted criticism. However despite it no longer being an official manifesto policy it disn’t prevent one of their candidates stating that Islam was Islam “morally flawed and degenerate” and he backed a controversial Dutch politician, who called Islam a retarded ideology. He further stated that “A removal of multi-culturalism and assimilation of these people needs to done to save them from the abyss of exclusion and welfare. Above all, one should not shy away of contemplating forced repatriation, or threatening it to further assimilation, as a result of their lack of economic contribution to the UK.”

  There have been many other disgusting views expressed by members of UKIP including, but not limited to:

  1. It being ‘dangerous to allow those who do not work to vote
  2. All babies with disabilities should be aborted as they are a burden (in fairness Farage condemned this one
  3. Some homosexuals prefer sex with animals
  4. A full length book on the links between homosexuality and paedophilia wouldn’t do the topic justice (she was sacked)
  5. There is no such thing as homophobia (he was sacked) although bizarrely the UKIP Youth-Chairman was also sacked when he supported same sex marriage – make your mind up UKIP.
  6. ‘Jokes’ on facebook that old people should be euthanised when they become a burden
  7. ‘Jokes’ about muslims having sex with camels. The same person then made ‘jokes’ about “paki” families going home and spreading Christmas cheer with “eggnog for nig-nogs”

  Would you say ‘there is still not a lot wrong there’?

powered by SEO Super Comments