While catching up on my news this morning, I am struck by the cleft stick Tim Farron has put himself in, with his preference to go into coalition with the Tories and his promise to have a second referendum … while I admit that working with Labour is difficult for him, there are potential “Remainer” LibDem voters that will ask how that is a coherent “remain” promise.
I was writing about the need for new systems in the CRM & HR domains to support the new requirements coming our of the GDPR , particularly for mid-range companies. I had found this article that talked about the nature of the HRMS market and snidely commented on the foolishness of focusing on recruitment to the exclusion of other HR functions. I had not considered the big ERP providers because their price tag, both of licence and implementation and operational cost is such that they tend to be inappropriate for SMEs. Despite this I came across this puff piece talking about an HRMS selection exercise between Oracle, SAP and Workday. The last of these offers the product as SAAS , although given it competes with the big two, it comes with a high price tag.
Theresa May pretending that the Fixed Term Parliament Act has never existed announced a ‘snap’ general election yesterday. She claims it’s because of the effectiveness of the “remain” campaign in parliament is jeopardising the Government’s ability to execute the “will of the people”. It’s certainly a very sudden change of heart.
While it’s massive fun to assume that she’s done it because Inspector Knacker has found evidence to prosecute 30 Tories, some of whom will be MPs, it would seem that as she pursues her negotiations with the EU, she’s finding it harder and harder to win any deal. She’s frightened of her loony Brexiteers who wont let her make the necessary compromises and frightened of her Remainers who may reject whatever she gets in two years time.
While Labour in Parliament look beatable, there’s ½ million of us in the country and the example of Jean-Luc Mélenchon shows that one can come from no-where to a position of contention.
I have a number of US facebook friends, one of whom put this article about the Alabama Senate approving a private church police force. Apart from the US’s prohibition on the establishment of religion, this raises interesting questions on the way in which police and prosecution decisions are or should be accountable to the public. If one looks at “Jennifer Government” one can see the end game of the privatisation agenda.
While in the UK (I think, but certainly in England and Wales) we have a public interest test in any decision to prosecute which is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, there are at least two weaknesses in the establishment of public accountability.
The first is that we allow private prosecutions of criminal offences. Is this a problem? In theory maybe not because Judges need to decide if the proposed prosecutor has “standing” but that is all, they do not apply a public interest test. They decided that William Rees Mogg did not have standing when he tried to have Harry Hewitt prosecuted for treason, but did permit the Federation Against Software Theft to bring an eventually successful private prosecution against Anton Vickerman for copyright fraud after the CPS had decided it wasn’t in the public interest. The other problem is that the Police are taking sponsorship, in the City, some police cars have been seen with BUPA advertisements, and football clubs have had to contribute to the policing cost of their games and grounds.
It’s getting interesting in France, has Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the Union de la Gauche, overtaken Fillon to become 3rd in the polls for the election of the President, after Le Pen (Fascist) and Macron (Centrist). Yet again the fate of the incumbent Socialist Party must be a lesson for social democrats around the world.
#yellowtail wines have added a Malbec to their very fine Cabernet Sauvignon & Merlot, need to find somewhere local that stocks it since their distribution strategy seems a bit odd.
Now that we know that the UK Government and the EU both believe that the UK’s exit from the EU will require one or two new treaties I have renewed my interest as to whether the European Union Act of 2011 will mandate that these new treaties must be reviewed by Parliament via an Act even if only to say that they don’t require another referendum.
I re-read Greiner’s Evolution and Revolutions as Organisations grow. He argues that the growth of companies meet crises, the resolution of which change and shape the next stage of development and that companies go through creativity, direction, delegation, co-ordination and collaboration stages. As ever, I fail to see the compulsion and inexorability of each succeeding stage but the causes of potential stagnation and the need to respond by changing the management style and tools are insightful.
I wonder where today’s exemplar corporates are on this curve, or is software different?
This article on the LSE European Politics blog examines the proposition that the accession of Eastern Europe, post soviet states led to a decision sclerosis in the European Union. One of Dimiter Toshkov’s analytic tools examines the average speed of decisions taken as well as analysing the number of times each country votes “No” and wins. I also like his charting techniques.
The issue of delay reminded me of the time I looked at votes/MEP and the amount of time an MEP might get in Parliament. I was exploring increasing the size of the Parliament …. but doing so at the scale I was considering would have an adverse impact on the time each MEP might get to speak. This implies the need to deploy a parallelism by having more committees and commissions that can meet at the same time. There’s probably a limit to the size of a representative assembly but it isn’t the 400-700 that seems popular in the western democracies, many Union conferences are much larger and meet less frequently.