Stopping arguing long enough to fact check
Discussion
Why don't people do this more?
First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
Kermit power said:
Why don't people do this more?
First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
What - you mean all the BS in the Mail and similar isn’t true? Really? First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
A lot of what counts for news in the U.K. is just fear mongering, often designed to divert people’s attention from the real problems and the real culprits. The perpetrators obviously count on people not being able to (or not bothering) to fact check. They would seem to be right in that assumption.
The other problem is that people often want something to be true and actively avoid anything that contradicts that. Take a look at the climate change deniers on their thread. They want climate change to be some sort of mass conspiracy and there is nothing you can say and no evidence you can provide that will change their minds.
Kermit power said:
Why don't people do this more?
....
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
Not sure the old fact checkers have fact checked the right thing there - What they appear to have done is account for the direct headcount costs of the roles themselves. This is (as one might expect) a small number of people overall and (according to their numbers) £30M....
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
What they haven't done is account for the days lost by every staff member to do the training. If for example every staff member has to spend 1 day doing annual training for this, then that adds up to a helluva lot more than 30M.
This article tries to calculate that for the Met police £450M cost
I've no idea what is the correct way to count it, but I reckon the £30M is on the low side (and assumes there is no productivity time lost elsewhere). Presumably whoever wrote the piece has their own agenda here.... I wonder what it is?
If you are selling a car for £500 and someone asks for £50 off, how do you feel about that?
If you are selling a car for £25,000 and someone asks for £2,500 off, how do you feel about that?
In both instances "just" 10% however you are still losing an extra £2,450 in the 2nd example.
Re the OP, £30m is still a vast amount of tax payers money. Not their money remember.
TX.
If you are selling a car for £25,000 and someone asks for £2,500 off, how do you feel about that?
In both instances "just" 10% however you are still losing an extra £2,450 in the 2nd example.
Re the OP, £30m is still a vast amount of tax payers money. Not their money remember.
TX.
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Absolutely agree, the officer may only cost a few grand a month but the cost to the organisation in lost productivity and actually complying with the demands of this non productive person or department can be massive. There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
This... the £30m is small fry compared to changing the colour of the waiting room chairs to 'create a better atmosphere' in every hospital across the country.There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Getragdogleg said:
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Absolutely agree, the officer may only cost a few grand a month but the cost to the organisation in lost productivity and actually complying with the demands of this non productive person or department can be massive. There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
fat80b said:
Getragdogleg said:
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Absolutely agree, the officer may only cost a few grand a month but the cost to the organisation in lost productivity and actually complying with the demands of this non productive person or department can be massive. There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
He certainly won't admit he is wrong though, he'll just disappear and create more nonsense posts in the future.
snuffy said:
30 million here, 30 million there, eventually it all adds up.
It will likely be £30m of direct spend on the teams/departments that come up with this stuff.But then a lot more than £30m elsewhere as every other team/department has to implement it, all from their own budget.
So you are correct - it all does add up.
Virtually every post that is anti-public sector or in particular local government, both on here and the wider internet will involve some comment about corruption, officers on the take etc. Yet, no one can ever produce any evidence to support their claim.
Now, stories do come out occasionally, like in all walks of life, but it is not a widespread pandemic of corrupt staff constantly accepting brown envelopes you would be lead to believe.
On the internet you can commit libel with virtually no come back.
Now, stories do come out occasionally, like in all walks of life, but it is not a widespread pandemic of corrupt staff constantly accepting brown envelopes you would be lead to believe.
On the internet you can commit libel with virtually no come back.
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Your second paragraph is bang on. Your first paragraph is completely unnecessary and condescending. There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Ashfordian said:
fat80b said:
Getragdogleg said:
Ashfordian said:
As per usual, the OP is blinkered to how the real world works.
There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
Absolutely agree, the officer may only cost a few grand a month but the cost to the organisation in lost productivity and actually complying with the demands of this non productive person or department can be massive. There is no mention of the costs these roles create on the rest of the organisation. This is going to be a lot more than the £30m quoted for just employing them.
He certainly won't admit he is wrong though, he'll just disappear and create more nonsense posts in the future.
Kermit power said:
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
Because an argument can be used to support a wider narrative where there exist vested interests to stoke an argument in the first place. I've been on the receiving end of this.In 2015, the company I was running was appointed by Hull City Council to help them reduce contamination in recycling which was costing the council over £600k each year in otherwise avoidable costs. We recruited a team of local people to go and see what the issue was and provide advice to residents on the correct means of recycling. Part of this involved looking in bins on collection days to ascertain the principal contaminant materials. Our total budget was £100k. £80k covered the local team with mourn £5k cost so our 'fee' was £15k.
Stoked by opposing political forces in place in Hull at the time, the press took a great deal of interest in this. By the time this interest had reached its peak, we were already delivering tangible success having saved the council far more than they were paying us. Despite this, I ended up on Look North, local ITV, BBC Breakfast and others explaining how it costs '£100k to look in people's bins'. Despite clear explanation, demonstration and evidence, the press wanted to run the narrative that the council was inept and spending money frivolously so left out all the bits that countered this argument.
I spent half an hour with a reporter and cameraman doorstepping people for their views - all of whom were positive towards our's and the council's aim and intent. The reporter then changed tack and asked people the question: 'What do you think about the council spending £100k to snoop in people's bins?'. The response to this was less than positive. Guess which ones they used in the broadcast.
StevieBee said:
Kermit power said:
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
Because an argument can be used to support a wider narrative where there exist vested interests to stoke an argument in the first place. I've been on the receiving end of this.In 2015, the company I was running was appointed by Hull City Council to help them reduce contamination in recycling which was costing the council over £600k each year in otherwise avoidable costs. We recruited a team of local people to go and see what the issue was and provide advice to residents on the correct means of recycling. Part of this involved looking in bins on collection days to ascertain the principal contaminant materials. Our total budget was £100k. £80k covered the local team with mourn £5k cost so our 'fee' was £15k.
Stoked by opposing political forces in place in Hull at the time, the press took a great deal of interest in this. By the time this interest had reached its peak, we were already delivering tangible success having saved the council far more than they were paying us. Despite this, I ended up on Look North, local ITV, BBC Breakfast and others explaining how it costs '£100k to look in people's bins'. Despite clear explanation, demonstration and evidence, the press wanted to run the narrative that the council was inept and spending money frivolously so left out all the bits that countered this argument.
I spent half an hour with a reporter and cameraman doorstepping people for their views - all of whom were positive towards our's and the council's aim and intent. The reporter then changed tack and asked people the question: 'What do you think about the council spending £100k to snoop in people's bins?'. The response to this was less than positive. Guess which ones they used in the broadcast.
I get this when I finally relent to PR and speak to a journo (the answer is now a firm no, and the thought of being on Brekkie news is horrifying). Despite explaining the difference between EBITDA/ Adjusted Operating Profit and net profit, they will still run on X making big loss, going bust, not X had to write off an exceptional cost this year because Y.
I think we all need to be a bit more Mick Lynch when faced with these muppets.
The internet offers all the information in the world.
Unfortunately it offers just enough that you can form a viewpoint on anything whilst not being an expert on anything and actively being dumb and blind to most.
The temptation to have an argument and the thrill of arguing with someone without any repercussions because they're just a random username on a website is too much for us all. Previously we'd be holding it all in or b
hing behind people's backs or we'd be ignoring the loud old drunk in the corner of the pub whereas they're all connected so you get your echo chambers which are ridiculously powerful and I really don't think humans have adjusted to the internet age yet.
Unfortunately it offers just enough that you can form a viewpoint on anything whilst not being an expert on anything and actively being dumb and blind to most.
The temptation to have an argument and the thrill of arguing with someone without any repercussions because they're just a random username on a website is too much for us all. Previously we'd be holding it all in or b
hing behind people's backs or we'd be ignoring the loud old drunk in the corner of the pub whereas they're all connected so you get your echo chambers which are ridiculously powerful and I really don't think humans have adjusted to the internet age yet.Kermit power said:
Why don't people do this more?
First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
It wouldn't matter how much money it costs, because most of the people who find issue with "diversity" spending generally tend to be opposed to diveristy in principle. First up, this is not a thread designed to actually debate diversity, wokery, LGBT and the like, but you can't spend any time in NP&E without seeing someone commenting about "diversity officers" and similarly titled jobs, almost always in the public sector.
Usually, an argument ensues, with the majority - this is PH after all - condemning this as Wokish nonsense the eradication of which would provide both the funding of the NHS and enough people to work in it without requiring further immigration, and a minority trying to make the case for how important it is to keep this sort of role.
What I don't recall ever seeing, however, is anyone actually questioning whether these roles actually really exist, and if they do, how many people are doing them and at what cost?
I therefore found this BBC Fact Checker really interesting. In light of Jeremy Hunt apparently planning to urge councils to reduce diversity spending in today's budget, they looked at FOI requests sent my the Conservative Way Forward group a to councils a couple of years ago, which identified around £30m in expenditure across them all.
Now obviously if I find £30m down the back of the sofa this evening I probably won't be reporting for work tomorrow, but in terms of total local authority spending- budgeted at £117.6Bn for the current tax year - that's just 0.0256% of the total. Barely even a rounding error!
So if a fact check can reveal an argument to actually be a complete non argument, why on earth bother arguing about it in the first place? It's not as though there aren't plenty of things with real substance to argue about instead... or are there???
If you asked what an appropriate spend on diversity would be, they'd say £0.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff