Reshuffles are a sign of weakness

MOVING THE PLAYERS: Doesn’t the recent reshuffle suggest that  PM David Cameron made bad choices in the first place? That’s the view of our letter writer

MOVING THE PLAYERS: Doesn’t the recent reshuffle suggest that PM David Cameron made bad choices in the first place? That’s the view of our letter writer

First published in Letters by

PICTURE the scene. You are MD of a new company and you appoint various people to fill the top jobs, treasurer, foreign sales, personnel manager, etc.

You declare all these newly appointed people are, “as good as you can get as they are all at the top of their game”.

Then, after four years in their jobs, you suddenly boot them out and appoint a new load of people who are, strangely, at the top of their game.

Yet the last lot, who you’ve just booted out, were supposedly at the top of their game.

If this scenario happened in a commercial company the MD would rapidly be shown the door. Yet the above sacking/hiring debacle happens in government all the time.

Surely this reshuffle demonstrates that the PM is a poor judge of character.

So why, exactly, do all governments reshuffle? Being the poor judges of character, that all modern PMs appear to be is hardly a good recommendation for someone to be the leader of a country.

Philip Roe, Roman Avenue South, Stamford Bridge, York.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:59am Fri 25 Jul 14

Thecynic says...

The reason being that unlike a commercial company, almost without exception, Government ministers have absolutely no experience in the roles that they are asked to undertake. These inexperienced ministers then proclaim that they know best to all and sundry, and bring in various rules and regulations, which we the public have to follow, even though in some if not most cases, they get it wrong and cost us the taxpayer millions upon millions of pounds.

I've always said, (and always will) that anyone who is put in such a responsible position should at least have some knowledge and experience of the role upon which they are undertaking. Many times I have come across supervisors and managers in industry who haven't had a clue as to what a particular job entails or requires in order to be done efficiently. That's exactly the same as happens in Government, the difference is that in Government they have a bottomless pit of money, ie yours and mine, the taxpayers, so they don't care or worry so much.
The reason being that unlike a commercial company, almost without exception, Government ministers have absolutely no experience in the roles that they are asked to undertake. These inexperienced ministers then proclaim that they know best to all and sundry, and bring in various rules and regulations, which we the public have to follow, even though in some if not most cases, they get it wrong and cost us the taxpayer millions upon millions of pounds. I've always said, (and always will) that anyone who is put in such a responsible position should at least have some knowledge and experience of the role upon which they are undertaking. Many times I have come across supervisors and managers in industry who haven't had a clue as to what a particular job entails or requires in order to be done efficiently. That's exactly the same as happens in Government, the difference is that in Government they have a bottomless pit of money, ie yours and mine, the taxpayers, so they don't care or worry so much. Thecynic
  • Score: 5

12:09pm Fri 25 Jul 14

SteveSCA says...

What a ridiculous letter.

You make it sound like in commercial businesses, people stay in the same roles for their whole working lives. Have you never heard of people being promoted and moving up the "corporate ladder"? Which then means that other people then need to be moved into their previous roles, and so on. Or people being transferred to broaden/develop their careers/experience or to give them a fresh challenge - say a sales manager for one product being moved after a few years to be responsible for another? Does this constitute a "debacle" which implies "weakness" and "poor judgement of the character" on the part of the MD which means that he should be "shown the door"? No of course it doesn't - it's what happens all the time.

And it's exactly the same as what happens in government (of whatever party). The whole premise of your letter is quite absurd.
What a ridiculous letter. You make it sound like in commercial businesses, people stay in the same roles for their whole working lives. Have you never heard of people being promoted and moving up the "corporate ladder"? Which then means that other people then need to be moved into their previous roles, and so on. Or people being transferred to broaden/develop their careers/experience or to give them a fresh challenge - say a sales manager for one product being moved after a few years to be responsible for another? Does this constitute a "debacle" which implies "weakness" and "poor judgement of the character" on the part of the MD which means that he should be "shown the door"? No of course it doesn't - it's what happens all the time. And it's exactly the same as what happens in government (of whatever party). The whole premise of your letter is quite absurd. SteveSCA
  • Score: 10

4:35pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

Career progression & succession planning to name but 2 reason why people move within a commercial organisation. No=one fires the Chief Exec for encouraging those....

Anyway, Ministers typically are responsibly for setting policy, not implementing it. Implementation is done by the Civil service - the permanent government of this country. So although we might think Ministers are complete muppets or absolutely wonderful, actually their degree of influence is always "moderated" to a fairly large extent by the bureaucracy.
Career progression & succession planning to name but 2 reason why people move within a commercial organisation. No=one fires the Chief Exec for encouraging those.... Anyway, Ministers typically are responsibly for setting policy, not implementing it. Implementation is done by the Civil service - the permanent government of this country. So although we might think Ministers are complete muppets or absolutely wonderful, actually their degree of influence is always "moderated" to a fairly large extent by the bureaucracy. MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: 1

2:32am Sat 26 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

SteveSCA wrote:
What a ridiculous letter.

You make it sound like in commercial businesses, people stay in the same roles for their whole working lives. Have you never heard of people being promoted and moving up the "corporate ladder"? Which then means that other people then need to be moved into their previous roles, and so on. Or people being transferred to broaden/develop their careers/experience or to give them a fresh challenge - say a sales manager for one product being moved after a few years to be responsible for another? Does this constitute a "debacle" which implies "weakness" and "poor judgement of the character" on the part of the MD which means that he should be "shown the door"? No of course it doesn't - it's what happens all the time.

And it's exactly the same as what happens in government (of whatever party). The whole premise of your letter is quite absurd.
that's all well and good... but I've yet to see a situation whereby a person who has been a (for example) head housekeeper in a large hotel is suddenly called to the main office and told that from the next week their job will be facilities maintenance manager.

The situation of randomly changing people's positions of responsibility, a position which handles large sums of money, is quite simply one of the most bizarre things which happens in the ruling of this country
[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote: What a ridiculous letter. You make it sound like in commercial businesses, people stay in the same roles for their whole working lives. Have you never heard of people being promoted and moving up the "corporate ladder"? Which then means that other people then need to be moved into their previous roles, and so on. Or people being transferred to broaden/develop their careers/experience or to give them a fresh challenge - say a sales manager for one product being moved after a few years to be responsible for another? Does this constitute a "debacle" which implies "weakness" and "poor judgement of the character" on the part of the MD which means that he should be "shown the door"? No of course it doesn't - it's what happens all the time. And it's exactly the same as what happens in government (of whatever party). The whole premise of your letter is quite absurd.[/p][/quote]that's all well and good... but I've yet to see a situation whereby a person who has been a (for example) head housekeeper in a large hotel is suddenly called to the main office and told that from the next week their job will be facilities maintenance manager. The situation of randomly changing people's positions of responsibility, a position which handles large sums of money, is quite simply one of the most bizarre things which happens in the ruling of this country Magicman!
  • Score: 0

12:18am Wed 30 Jul 14

/kev/null says...

The reshuffle moved or removed all of the older members of the cabinet at a time when an investigation was beginning into the abuse of children in care by government ministers in the 1980s.

The following day a new law was introduced to stop FOI requests asking awkward questions about the royal family.

Of course all of this is probably coincidental. Maybe it's also coincidental that the mainstream press has made no attempt to correlate these occurrences. I did note that the news on Radio 4 on the morning of the reshuffle reported the child abuse investigation immediately after the report of the reshuffle. That may have been as close as the BBC were allowed to relate the two items.
The reshuffle moved or removed all of the older members of the cabinet at a time when an investigation was beginning into the abuse of children in care by government ministers in the 1980s. The following day a new law was introduced to stop FOI requests asking awkward questions about the royal family. Of course all of this is probably coincidental. Maybe it's also coincidental that the mainstream press has made no attempt to correlate these occurrences. I did note that the news on Radio 4 on the morning of the reshuffle reported the child abuse investigation immediately after the report of the reshuffle. That may have been as close as the BBC were allowed to relate the two items. /kev/null
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree