I wholeheartedly agree with this, in Private Eye this week:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Are opposition MPs oblivious to this or do they simply ignore it because they will operate in the same way when they/if they get into government?
What is parliamentary scrutiny if it ignores this sort of conflict of interest?
Some do know
Margaret Hodge and Meg Hillier, for instance
I’m sure that’s right, Richard, but two isn’t really enough is it?
Two what?
Two people who do know.
I expect there are a few more besides Margaret and Meg. 🙂
I forget you are reading without continuity and therefore context.
I can’t imagine a Corbyn government hiring these sharks, can you?
Their intense tribalism would suggest otherwise, even if they could ever be useful
In another era we’d avoiding creating monopolies.
These days it seems monopolies are in – even though neo-liberal propaganda will tell you that is opposed to them.
It’s only opposed to state monopolies of course. Private sector ones are fine – obviously.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
January 11 2018 at 11:44 am
“..These days it seems monopolies are in — even though neo-liberal propaganda will tell you that is opposed to them.”
This is one of the inherent contradictions of the market philosophy.
Competition is supposed to be ‘a good thing’, but the object of all the competitors is to eradicate the competition. You can’t get away from that, it’s the central paradox of the game.
The only solution is to play a different game, or to be able to live a very long time on fresh air until cracks appear in the monopoly and new players can get a wedge in. Mostly we don’t live long enough for that to be a viable social strategy.
The lessons of Arthur Andersen were once acknowledged but never really learned.
“KPMG earns millions advising governments, trusts and commissioning groups” – what does it “advise” them on? The Gov has off & on been “running” the NHS for +/- 68 years – why would it need a bunch of insultants to “advise” it? One supposes the trusts and CGs likewise know something about health care? Apart from money extraction (as well as taking the p*ss) what does KPMG “know” about health care? What does it bring to the party? The only conclusion I can draw is that KPMG et al are the new P.T.Barnums of the age with the attendant view “a sucker is born every minute”.
Most managers lack self confidence
Millions to KPMG are for reassurance in reality
“Most managers lack self confidence
Millions to KPMG are for reassurance in reality”
I’m not sure whether to query the punctuation here, or the word choice.
Do you mean: In reality, millions to KPMG are for reassurance [to managers].
Or : Millions to KPMG are for reassurance in the prevalent fantasy 🙂
Either will do
At the risk of observing the “bleedin obvious” – why were these managers hired in the 1st place? Surely having some measure of self confidence is a requsite for any management position (+ some knowledge on what you are managing). Sounds like large parts of gov etc are junkies – consultant junkies with the insultants (insult+ consultant = insultant) happy to provide a daily fix. Sad.
Mike Parr asks:
“At the risk of observing the “bleedin obvious” — why were these managers hired in the 1st place? ”
There is the Peter Principle. That undoubtedly is a real issue – people are promoted to their level of incompetence. (Quite pronounced in the military, I gather, too)
There’s the social network issue of promoting ‘People like Us’. This has produced a boardroom elite.
There is the issue of appointing people on vastly inflated salaries, because they must be good if they can command such a high salary. That’s a curiously self-reinforcing fantasy.
And we have fallen for the hero saviour myth. The powerful omniscient leader.
And there is the one genuine justification that I can think of, which is the blame culture. We have a tendency to look for scapegoats with the result that only the people with thick skins are prepared to apply for ‘top’ jobs.
These routes to the top ensure a high degree of confidence, but without any assurance of competency. So we get Crocodiles. Thick skin, primitive brain, sharp teeth, voracious appetite, totally omnivorous.
As with politicians, we get what we deserve.
“EY was said to be favoured by the company’s directors, possibly because Lee Watson, a partner at the audit giant, is on secondment to Carillion, acting as a director and as the contractor’s chief transformation officer.”