9 ms·

About "idea guys". During World War II, after the defeat at Dunkirk, Britain formed a national government, headed by Winston Churchill. This was not a Conservat

About "idea guys". During World War II, after the defeat at Dunkirk, Britain formed a national government, headed by Winston Churchill. This was not a Conservative government, but rather, was national, in that all parties were invited to participate. A number of MPs suggested that, to increase participation of small parties, Churchill should appoint a few "Ministers Without Portfolio". He absolutely refused. He had previous experience with this and thought it was a disaster. "Ministers Without Portfolio" became "idea guys". In meetings, they made lots of suggestions, and they held up conversations with their ideas, but they were not in charge of anything so they never really had to take responsibility when things went wrong. Perhaps worst of all, in Churchill's view, because such ministers had no real responsibilities, they aggravated everyone else by asking questions about what the ministers with real responsibilities were up to.

jfengel 8y ago
I've never understood how those small parties persist. Either they're aligned permanently with one of the two dominant parties, where they can be given positions of trust and power, or they flop around (in which case nobody can make long-term deals with them). They strike me as the "ideas guys" of politics, carping about the way things are done without the risk of having to actually implement their own goals.
- mrkurt 8y ago
  They only really persist if there aren't long term dominant parties. Or as opposition parties.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Perhaps today. Particularly with our especially unrepresentative first past the post system that can only work for two parties. Going further back UK politics was much less whip-driven, or politics by pager as became the Blairite tendency. Minor parties were a more accepted part of politics, as was a far wider range of views within a party.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  They exist as a way of pulling people towards issues and as a release valve if the primary party gets too corrupt. Take the Green Party in Canada. Without it, the remaining left(ish) parties in Canada only have to go a little better than the Conservatives on the environment to get the environmental vote. With the Greens in, they have to at least meet them half-way or they risk further splitting the centre-left. They also sometimes hold the balance of power. This puts their issue front and centre.
  - dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
    Why has wanting clean air and water become a left right issue?
    - tux1968 8y ago
      Because it's not the goal that's in dispute, it's the difference of ideas about how to achieve it.
      - whatislovecraft 8y ago
        > Because it's not the goal that's in dispute Yes, it is. Many Republicans in the USA specifically state that the environment is here for us to ravage and do whatever we want with. Adding pollution and choosing to not clean it up is part of Republican Party platform of short-term gains while not pricing in the real economics of the situation. > it's the difference of ideas about how to get achieve it. I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies. They are always cutting the regulations with the obvious intent to dirty the water and air for cashmoney in the short term. Why is it like this? I don't know. But the 'left' is the group looking for capitalism to succeed out hundreds of years, and the 'right' is the group looking to get all the 'money' they can before the food is all poisoned and the water is too. -- This is not a partisan post of political opinions. I'm just stating facts here. The Republicans aren't trying to hide any of this! It's their platform - pretending it isn't, and downvoting me so nobody sees this post, is just going to make the problem worse in the future. Bad actors are hurting our environment and making it more difficult to get reliably clean water and air - and they are Republicans.
- scj 8y ago
  Small parties provide opposition. They can change the national conversation on issues[0]. Sometimes they provide confidence in minority parliaments (remember, in our system of government, losing a confidence vote generally means an election). Small parties also provide a protest vote, and since voting occurs on a riding-by-riding basis, the desire and intent of the protest can vary. Sometimes protests can be so widespread that no government can form a majority. In Canada, we managed to elect three minority governments in a row over a period of seven years (2004 - 2011). In short, voters use small parties to send a message. [0] The NDP's first national leader, Tommy Douglas, was never Prime Minister, but is known as "father of Medicare" and is generally well regarded by Canadians decades after his death.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  The flip side of this is the toxicity of first-past-the-post. You get a choice on once issue and have to take the rest that comes with it. It baffles me that people accept this.
  - strken 8y ago
    To elaborate on this, in America today it's possible to waste your vote, because you can't represent secondary political opinions, e.g. a vote for the Starbucks CEO doesn't flow down to your second choice. In some other systems, you can choose multiple options. This makes it possible to represent an opinion like "Starbucks CEO, then Democrats, then Libertarians, then Republicans", and so smaller parties can still get votes without compromising the election of larger aligned parties.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      The SF mayoral elections work this way and it's quite cool.
    - wolco 8y ago
      Why not allow people to vote themselves on each issue? The purpose of a single person representing an area is less desirable than ever. Direct democracy would solve a lot and create different issues.
      - HappySweeney 8y ago
        This has been attempted, and generally leads to disaster. When a bill for increased spending is introduced (for say, better roads, more schools, etc), it receives widespread support from the voters, and easily passes. When another bill which raises taxes (in order to pay for the previous purchases) is introduced, it enjoys widespread condemnation, and is soundly defeated. Bankruptcy ensues.
        likeclockwork 8y ago
        Making mistakes is a crucial part of learning.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Quite the contrary, small parties focused on a niche goal can be very effective in attaining that goal - if the dominant parties need their support, they pretty much have to give in to the small party's pet peeve, and in return the small party gives them votes for the other issues. For example, at least a part of current Brexit hassle is because the DUP (with their 1.5% of total MP seats) are needed by May's government, and they got to veto one of possible options of solving the Ireland-North Ireland customs border issue. There are many other examples worldwide, where small parties focused on a particular domain of problems can get an oversized influence in that domain.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  I never understood why in a democracy those votes for small parties are allowed to go to waste. They should be able to give there "dropped" votes to a bigger party for a legislative period, for negotiated terms. "If you promise to push opticfibre to all homes in these citys, you can have our voters voice for the next 4 years." This would solve the problem of unheard voices and- allow actual negotiating politicians to be trained and get busy.
  - RugnirViking 8y ago
    Ranked choice voting
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Of course Churchill was perhaps one of the biggest idea guys of the lot. He did plenty, but he also interfered and had bad ideas a plenty too. Thankfully, he was mostly open to being told to butt out. The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (SOE) was a famous Churchill enthusiasm, yet he had many useless impractical ones, that were a huge distraction, too.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  And sometimes worse than just useless or impractical. (cough Gallipoli cough)
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Gallipoli. Norway. Gutting the Royal Navy as chancellor in the 1920s. Those were the truly damaging ones. Of the impractical, well, he was a great believer in the boffins, so he supported SOE and other secret warfare, Bletchley, tanks etc. Yet he also promoted research into death rays, aerial mines, The Great Panjandrum (a huge 20 foot rocket powered catherine wheel intended to clear minefields. Test footage on YT), Project Habakkuk (An aircraft carrier made of pycrete - ice). I could go on all day. :) Yet to get the good science, he probably had to let the boffins explore the bad and the silly too, so frankly I'm glad he had some of those seriously oddball thanks to hindsight ideas.
    - smacktoward 8y ago
      I generally describe Churchill as an object lesson in how history can decide that getting one big thing right (that Nazi Germany was an existential threat that needed to be taken seriously) outweighs getting basically every other thing wrong.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        I'm not nearly as harsh about it. He got some impressively big stuff wrong, and right. Above all he wasn't afraid to act. Above all, that's what was needed right then. He'll always be controversial for his more extreme examples of being wrong. Such is what seems to make a great general or wartime leader. More he was a wartime YC - he backed all sorts of clearly idiotic ideas, and a few of them turned out to be platinum. Would Lord Halifax, Chamberlain or Atlee (or worse May, Johnson or Corbyn) have poured the equivalent of billions into tanks that were crucial in WW1, or into Bletchley that turned out to be the golden goose, or radar? Nope, almost certainly not, they'd have all have died as unproven too, and we'd probably have lost. An aircraft carrier made of ice is clearly an absurd idea. Yet if it had closed the Atlantic gap, as intended, millions of tons of shipping would have been saved.
nabla9 8y ago
Executive body is wrong place for the idea guys.
maxxxxx 8y ago
" "idea guys". In meetings, they made lots of suggestions, and they held up conversations with their ideas, but they were not in charge of anything so they never really had to take responsibility when things went wrong" Reminds me of a whole layer of people at corporate headquarters of my company. They send out beautiful newsletters, hold seminars and meetings about all kinds of stuff but as soon as it has been published it fizzles out and nothing comes out of it.
- ok_coo 8y ago
  We have similar people at our org. Most of the time the idea is the easiest part. They don't want to be bogged down in the details, compromises or restrictions necessary to bring it to life. Why stick around for the hard part when you can get the promotion/cred for the idea and move on?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Exactly. I can just push another corporate social network, do a few beautiful videos about all the collaboration, but why bother thinking about why nobody is using it?
jjtheblunt 8y ago
Like scrum masters, or nonworking spouses?
- adamking 8y ago
  Scrum masters shouldn't be contributing ideas in terms of implementation or design unless they're also part of the dev team. They're there to facilitate. Product owners are probably more akin to "idea guys". Edit: Even product owner is a bit of a stretch on my part. They're presenting user stories and requirements, which the dev team can pick and choose from the backlog (which, albeit, is prioritized by the product owner).
learnstats2 8y ago
I'm not sure where this interpretation has come from but it doesn't ring true. Apart from anything else, Churchill's war ministry did feature a Minister without Portfolio.

jfengel 8y ago

I've never understood how those small parties persist. Either they're aligned permanently with one of the two dominant parties, where they can be given positions of trust and power, or they flop around (in which case nobody can make long-term deals with them). They strike me as the "ideas guys" of politics, carping about the way things are done without the risk of having to actually implement their own goals.

mrkurt 8y ago
They only really persist if there aren't long term dominant parties. Or as opposition parties.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Perhaps today. Particularly with our especially unrepresentative first past the post system that can only work for two parties. Going further back UK politics was much less whip-driven, or politics by pager as became the Blairite tendency. Minor parties were a more accepted part of politics, as was a far wider range of views within a party.
3pt14159 8y ago
They exist as a way of pulling people towards issues and as a release valve if the primary party gets too corrupt. Take the Green Party in Canada. Without it, the remaining left(ish) parties in Canada only have to go a little better than the Conservatives on the environment to get the environmental vote. With the Greens in, they have to at least meet them half-way or they risk further splitting the centre-left. They also sometimes hold the balance of power. This puts their issue front and centre.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
  Why has wanting clean air and water become a left right issue?
  - tux1968 8y ago
    Because it's not the goal that's in dispute, it's the difference of ideas about how to achieve it.
    - whatislovecraft 8y ago
      > Because it's not the goal that's in dispute Yes, it is. Many Republicans in the USA specifically state that the environment is here for us to ravage and do whatever we want with. Adding pollution and choosing to not clean it up is part of Republican Party platform of short-term gains while not pricing in the real economics of the situation. > it's the difference of ideas about how to get achieve it. I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies. They are always cutting the regulations with the obvious intent to dirty the water and air for cashmoney in the short term. Why is it like this? I don't know. But the 'left' is the group looking for capitalism to succeed out hundreds of years, and the 'right' is the group looking to get all the 'money' they can before the food is all poisoned and the water is too. -- This is not a partisan post of political opinions. I'm just stating facts here. The Republicans aren't trying to hide any of this! It's their platform - pretending it isn't, and downvoting me so nobody sees this post, is just going to make the problem worse in the future. Bad actors are hurting our environment and making it more difficult to get reliably clean water and air - and they are Republicans.
scj 8y ago
Small parties provide opposition. They can change the national conversation on issues[0]. Sometimes they provide confidence in minority parliaments (remember, in our system of government, losing a confidence vote generally means an election). Small parties also provide a protest vote, and since voting occurs on a riding-by-riding basis, the desire and intent of the protest can vary. Sometimes protests can be so widespread that no government can form a majority. In Canada, we managed to elect three minority governments in a row over a period of seven years (2004 - 2011). In short, voters use small parties to send a message. [0] The NDP's first national leader, Tommy Douglas, was never Prime Minister, but is known as "father of Medicare" and is generally well regarded by Canadians decades after his death.
lostlogin 8y ago
The flip side of this is the toxicity of first-past-the-post. You get a choice on once issue and have to take the rest that comes with it. It baffles me that people accept this.
- strken 8y ago
  To elaborate on this, in America today it's possible to waste your vote, because you can't represent secondary political opinions, e.g. a vote for the Starbucks CEO doesn't flow down to your second choice. In some other systems, you can choose multiple options. This makes it possible to represent an opinion like "Starbucks CEO, then Democrats, then Libertarians, then Republicans", and so smaller parties can still get votes without compromising the election of larger aligned parties.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    The SF mayoral elections work this way and it's quite cool.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Why not allow people to vote themselves on each issue? The purpose of a single person representing an area is less desirable than ever. Direct democracy would solve a lot and create different issues.
    - HappySweeney 8y ago
      This has been attempted, and generally leads to disaster. When a bill for increased spending is introduced (for say, better roads, more schools, etc), it receives widespread support from the voters, and easily passes. When another bill which raises taxes (in order to pay for the previous purchases) is introduced, it enjoys widespread condemnation, and is soundly defeated. Bankruptcy ensues.
      - likeclockwork 8y ago
        Making mistakes is a crucial part of learning.
PeterisP 8y ago
Quite the contrary, small parties focused on a niche goal can be very effective in attaining that goal - if the dominant parties need their support, they pretty much have to give in to the small party's pet peeve, and in return the small party gives them votes for the other issues. For example, at least a part of current Brexit hassle is because the DUP (with their 1.5% of total MP seats) are needed by May's government, and they got to veto one of possible options of solving the Ireland-North Ireland customs border issue. There are many other examples worldwide, where small parties focused on a particular domain of problems can get an oversized influence in that domain.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
I never understood why in a democracy those votes for small parties are allowed to go to waste. They should be able to give there "dropped" votes to a bigger party for a legislative period, for negotiated terms. "If you promise to push opticfibre to all homes in these citys, you can have our voters voice for the next 4 years." This would solve the problem of unheard voices and- allow actual negotiating politicians to be trained and get busy.
- RugnirViking 8y ago
  Ranked choice voting

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Of course Churchill was perhaps one of the biggest idea guys of the lot. He did plenty, but he also interfered and had bad ideas a plenty too. Thankfully, he was mostly open to being told to butt out. The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (SOE) was a famous Churchill enthusiasm, yet he had many useless impractical ones, that were a huge distraction, too.

smacktoward 8y ago
And sometimes worse than just useless or impractical. (cough Gallipoli cough)
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Gallipoli. Norway. Gutting the Royal Navy as chancellor in the 1920s. Those were the truly damaging ones. Of the impractical, well, he was a great believer in the boffins, so he supported SOE and other secret warfare, Bletchley, tanks etc. Yet he also promoted research into death rays, aerial mines, The Great Panjandrum (a huge 20 foot rocket powered catherine wheel intended to clear minefields. Test footage on YT), Project Habakkuk (An aircraft carrier made of pycrete - ice). I could go on all day. :) Yet to get the good science, he probably had to let the boffins explore the bad and the silly too, so frankly I'm glad he had some of those seriously oddball thanks to hindsight ideas.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    I generally describe Churchill as an object lesson in how history can decide that getting one big thing right (that Nazi Germany was an existential threat that needed to be taken seriously) outweighs getting basically every other thing wrong.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      I'm not nearly as harsh about it. He got some impressively big stuff wrong, and right. Above all he wasn't afraid to act. Above all, that's what was needed right then. He'll always be controversial for his more extreme examples of being wrong. Such is what seems to make a great general or wartime leader. More he was a wartime YC - he backed all sorts of clearly idiotic ideas, and a few of them turned out to be platinum. Would Lord Halifax, Chamberlain or Atlee (or worse May, Johnson or Corbyn) have poured the equivalent of billions into tanks that were crucial in WW1, or into Bletchley that turned out to be the golden goose, or radar? Nope, almost certainly not, they'd have all have died as unproven too, and we'd probably have lost. An aircraft carrier made of ice is clearly an absurd idea. Yet if it had closed the Atlantic gap, as intended, millions of tons of shipping would have been saved.

nabla9 8y ago

Executive body is wrong place for the idea guys.

maxxxxx 8y ago

" "idea guys". In meetings, they made lots of suggestions, and they held up conversations with their ideas, but they were not in charge of anything so they never really had to take responsibility when things went wrong" Reminds me of a whole layer of people at corporate headquarters of my company. They send out beautiful newsletters, hold seminars and meetings about all kinds of stuff but as soon as it has been published it fizzles out and nothing comes out of it.

ok_coo 8y ago
We have similar people at our org. Most of the time the idea is the easiest part. They don't want to be bogged down in the details, compromises or restrictions necessary to bring it to life. Why stick around for the hard part when you can get the promotion/cred for the idea and move on?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Exactly. I can just push another corporate social network, do a few beautiful videos about all the collaboration, but why bother thinking about why nobody is using it?

jjtheblunt 8y ago

Like scrum masters, or nonworking spouses?

adamking 8y ago
Scrum masters shouldn't be contributing ideas in terms of implementation or design unless they're also part of the dev team. They're there to facilitate. Product owners are probably more akin to "idea guys". Edit: Even product owner is a bit of a stretch on my part. They're presenting user stories and requirements, which the dev team can pick and choose from the backlog (which, albeit, is prioritized by the product owner).

learnstats2 8y ago

I'm not sure where this interpretation has come from but it doesn't ring true. Apart from anything else, Churchill's war ministry did feature a Minister without Portfolio.