‘Managing’ that which need not be managed

Down at local level, it is, of course, happening the same way all over the English-speaking world and as far is known, all over the western world.  Examples pour in from the US, Australia and of course, from here.

The danger, as mentioned in posts passim, is that one becomes entrenched and starts using buzzwords oneself. Long after the particular incidents have faded into obscurity, the effect it had, the read-and-weep, remain.

The only way to free oneself from the grip of the label is to quote example after example of what one does actually mean by a term, which is what this blog does and will do again now, via Chuckles.

Government comes into an area of life it has no need to, with its core incompetence and utter indifference to people’s situations, coupled with a sort of aggressive compassion for the wrongdoer.  It comes out in court sentences, it comes out in many ways.

And it’s so consistent and persistent, so continual – from that idiot who flooded the Missouri basin to the council officer prosecuting a resident for having the wheelie-bin in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Someone points out that it is simply interference in people’s affairs, the government at any level wishing to run people’s lives and to charge them for the service.

And someone else points out that this is not accidental, that there is intention, pointing to Common Purpose or even the devil.  Someone else replies that it’s just in the nature of government bureaucracies, though the wrong people seem to be employed these days – that the government employees seem thicker in the head these days, less capable of discretion.  That can be argued for and against.

The one Chuckles brings  here concerns the Environmental Agency and its interference in a local area’s water.



When one reads such a document, it is immediately pompous, official, written by a functionary, the government going about its legit business, signed, sealed and delivered … and does not even question itself about whether it should even be wasting taxpayers’ money on such things.

But that’s not important to government.  Whether you accept a hidden hand, e.g. Them through CP or you don’t, the simple fact is that the government employs countless people [though it’s now selling off agencies and pretending they’re now ‘companies’] and they need to be doing something to fill in those hours and justify their employment.

And from the officious employee or the pleasant one at the end of the phone up to the grotesquely salaried top man or increasingly – woman, they’re all about taking over some aspect of your life and earning brownie points for something essentially pointless.

Chuckles takes over the story. From the EA doc –

‘River flows change naturally throughout the year, so we want to protect flow variability in our rivers from low to high flow conditions. We use flow statistics to help to do this. Flow statistics are expressed as the percentage of time that flow is exceeded. Resource availability is calculated at four different flows, Q95 (lowest), Q70, Q50 and Q30 (highest).’

‘In cases where there is a flow deficit (RA is below the EFI) or risk of a flow deficit (FL below the EFI), there may be water available for abstraction at higher flows. This means that water may be scarce at low flows, but may be available to abstract at medium or high flows. A licence may still be granted but with conditions which protect the low flows.

This usually takes the form of a Hands off Flow (HOF) condition on a licence which requires abstraction to stop when the river flow falls below a certain amount. It‟s important to realise that artificial influences in a catchment (such as abstractions, discharges or releases from reservoirs) can act to both decrease and increase river flows at different times of the year.

However, Hands Off Flows and other conditions that we might apply to licences can be used to protect vulnerable flows whenever they occur.’

Comments Chuckles: ‘This allows them to ‘manage’ it, using their pseudoscience. River flows don’t need to be ‘managed’ they just ‘are’.’

‘4. Our conclusion is that the Bewl/Medway system can no longer guarantee security of supply without frequent recourse to emergency measures such as those defined in the Permit, and which should in practice only be invoked under exceptionally severe drought conditions.

If the Permit is granted, it will have been the second occasion in approx 6 years when SW have been obliged to resort to such measures; and this tells us something about the Company’s capacity to deal with conditions which …’

And of course, the pretty name Hands Off and the glossy literature which accompanies it, along with the childish logos someone dreams up – the government happily ‘managing’ yet another aspect of life that you poor sods couldn’t control yourselves – lulls the average cit into a sense that things are being properly ‘managed’ now and the cit needs no longer worry about that, thank you kindly and here’s the bill for the service.

And one spinoff from all this is the new ‘manager’, the one who has not come up through the ranks and is actually a manager but is a parachutee from university who is a fully fledged ‘manager’ and finds a job being one in some bureaucracy.  Perfect example is our local rail service with its three female ‘managers’ brooking no dissent and slowly running the service into the ground but because there is ‘social policy’ involved here, it’s more than one’s job’s worth to complain about core incompetence, particularly when they’re expending resources bringing out glossy brochures, posters and reports about ‘fit for purpose’ or some other jargon, instead of just getting on with this supposed ‘management’.

There’s not a lot new in this post but it is useful, from time to time, to look at an example contributing to things going pear-shaped.

8 comments for “‘Managing’ that which need not be managed

  1. Viscount Rectum
    April 19, 2015 at 9:02 am

    To prosecute someone for putting the wheely bin out at the wrong time is not because it was put out at the wrong time but an excuse to reduce the populace to an obedient mental state, they treat us like Pavlov treated his dogs, regulations from Brussels are to promote obedience.

    • April 19, 2015 at 9:38 am


    • Furor Teutonicus
      April 19, 2015 at 12:22 pm

      How primitive to have to put wheelie bins out at all.

      OUR binmen collect them, and put them back where they were found, themselves. So to blame THAT on Brussels is total bollox.

      • April 19, 2015 at 5:58 pm

        Well we can’t always have the best of everything, LOL.

      • Hereward unbowed.
        April 19, 2015 at 9:03 pm

        Indirectly landfill directives issued in Brussels have been applied, HMG taxes councils dumping everything into landfill and so the big idea [fraud] was to make people see the glorious opportunities in saving the polar bears and sustainability of going green and thus recycling domestic/household waste and you know councils – the stasi would be shamed and as we know a little bit of power corrupts but allow access to RIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000.

        Anything becomes possible.

  2. Hereward unbowed.
    April 19, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    From second link, resources “already under pressure” – well no shit sherlock.

    ” Defra’s new water white paper “Water for Life”, released in December last year, sets out Governments’ vision of a new coherent strategy for the management of water resources; aiming at a draft Bill later this year. It recognises that resources are already under pressure and that the supply deficit will continue to increase, threatening the environmental quality of our rivers and wetlands. The paper goes so far as to propose a pause on housing development for any given area until a water supply (and sewerage) infrastructure of adequate capacity is put in place. Paragraphs 6.45 – 6.49 of the paper also draw on the findings of a review of Ofwat’s role in determining whether their regulatory approach was “fit for purpose”. A number of areas for improvement were identified, including (Para 6.47), incentivising a more sustainable approach to the use of water resources; looking to keeping bills low in the short term but having a longer perspective on the impact that its decisions are likely to have on affordability and future resilience. It was also acknowledged (6.49) that Government could provide a stronger steer to Ofwat on how it should interpret its sustainable duty. This is to be welcomed as a move toward more balanced assessments of the economic, social and environmental components of resource management strategies.”

    [..]goes so far as to propose a pause on housing development for any given area until a water supply (and sewerage) infrastructure of adequate capacity is put in place.[/quote]

    Who are they kidding? Mind you, it’s how things used to be done back in the day circa pre 1985 and when local planning laws [restrictions on building on flood plains] were ditched.

    [..]ofwat’s role in determining whether their regulatory approach was “fit for purpose”[/quote]

    Is there anything done in the name of Ofwat, defra or in any government department you could care to mention “fit for purpose” other than office empire building and job creation for; more women and a bigger ethnic intake?

    [..]incentivising a more sustainable approach to the use of water[/quote]

    Opens up a whole cornucopia of possibilities, namely charging the earth for what falls naturally – oh yeah we should pay for purification and transport even sewerage – but not for profit.

    [..]Ofwat on how it should interpret its sustainable duty. incentivising a more sustainable approach to the use of water
    supply deficit will continue to increase[/quote]

    More “sustainable” – UN agenda 21 again, sustainable duty [?] and 2incentivising a more sustainable approach” [wotever] – we are talking in code and or in gobbledegook?

    No mention anywhere in all this serious and considered thinking, of one of two biggest factors in increasing water demand.

    a. Individual demands, and business.

    In the past thirty years or so, power showers, jacuzzis, marble bath tubs, en suite in every bedroom, a massive increase in water usage in city farms supplying salads and fruit for doorstep marketshttp://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/farmings-billiondollar-dream/2724529.aspx?storypage=2

    b. Thanks to mass immigration.

    The UK is importing a population equal to the size of Leeds [600,000] every year and with a birth rate which is increasing significantly each and every year in the last 19 since the scum party opened the doors.

    How is all that sustainable? – go figure.

    • Hereward unbowed.
      April 20, 2015 at 12:24 am


      [..]goes so far as to propose a pause on housing development for any given area until a water supply (and sewerage) infrastructure of adequate capacity is put in place.[/quote]

      I should have firstly noted, that, most of the above quote is an commendable conclusion and approach if – a tad late in the day..

      It also seems to me, that there is a nigh total lack of managed and thoughtful strategies in HMG’s approach to construction of new housing. In noting the above, although important what is more vital – really needed is a new policy on construction of greater water storage capacity ie reservoirs in Southern England – a major issue to which both, the Labour party and Tories have ducked out of for the best part of 40 years. Riverine Abstraction was once just an emergency measure. But now abstraction is relied upon to boost stocks of potable water. Another mistake because, it is often so contaminated even water filtration and purification plants cannot remove all of the trace poisons, such pollutants involving complex phenol-carcinogens and trace female hormonal compounds. During one period, post war and dating back to a previous era, water catchment areas for reservoirs were heavily restricted so that infilling rivers and streams were not allowed to be polluted by industry, domestic housing nor, farm effluent egress. It made for purer water but now, everybody and his dog knows better I guess.

      As last point, since the 70’s, the EU has enforced legislation and served diktats on UK water suppliers exhorting them to spend £60 billion on purifying a potable water system which was already the cleanest and best in Europe – if only the money had gone into building new storage capacity in the South.

      “No mention anywhere in all this serious and considered thinking, of one of two biggest factors in increasing water demand.”

      should have read:

      No mention anywhere in all this serious and considered thinking, the two biggest factors which are directly responsible for increasing demand for UK water resources.

  3. Voice of Reason
    April 19, 2015 at 10:57 pm

    Recently, I told the President of our university that I knew how to teach and train students, but not how to ‘deliver higher education’. This was in a public forum. What followed was a 2 minute discussion on diversity, and acceptance of other people’s language.

    Subsequent meetings have made it quite clear that he believes that one can ‘deliver content’ by having a small group of faculty ‘manage’ a larger group of whatever the managerial term for teachers is now.

Comments are closed.