View Single Post
Old 12-09-2019, 09:34 AM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,497
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Originally Posted by stevek View Post
This is what Michael Gove said this morning:

"The Yellowhammer documents are a worst-case scenario. They are produced so government can take plans and take steps in order to mitigate any of those consequences. And over the course of the last six weeks this government has taken considerable steps in order to ensure that, if there is a no-deal scenario, we can leave in the safest and smoothest possible way."

I am sure that it is true that the purpose of Yellowhammer was to set out the risks to enable the government to plan and take steps to address them. What amazes me - given that they must have known there was a high chance they'd be forced to publish Yellowhammer - is that the Government has published nothing alongside it to show how they have mitigations in hand and it will all be ok (or at least much less bad). If such information exists, that would surely have been a sensible thing to do both politically and to reassure the public.

They fact they haven't been able to do that is what really worries me.
Actually it won't be the Worse Case Scenario, its the most reasonable Worse Case Scenario.

It suggests to me, on reflection of the fact that it exposes a reality of Brexit Politicians being bare faced liars, that there is no contingency or mitigation of sufficent level.

Because thats how you do risk planning. You determine the possible outcomes, their likelyhood, and determine how you will mitiagte them and determine the likely effectiveness of that mitigation against the different risks and risk levels.

If you're planning for a worst case scenario, it means you expect it (i.e. there is a reasonable threat). You present evidencial arguements as to how you can mitigate risks (entirely) and how the impact will be reduced - and what the likely impact that remains would be.

I would argue if the government hasn't published any evidence of mitigation and impact reduction, then the degree to which it can mitigate and reduce the risk and issue threats isn't very good reading either.

Because if I was sitting presenting Brexit as a good idea, and the Yellowhammer documents painted a worse case scenario, I would immediately publish details of how the risks would be mitigated.

Because that is how you determine whether an approch is 'reasonable' you ascertain the likely risks against your mitigation plans - and present that as the probably outcome.

Business does this all the time. Determine risk, devise and test mitigation, review results, re-assess the approch.

Writing it off as a worse case scenario, so its ok, isn't reasonable or remotely sane. The worse case scenario of falling in the sea, is you drown. That generally means you don't go to sea, unless you have reduced all the risks related to falling in the sea to the best of your ability - and then prove that, before jumping into the ocean.

What we actually have is people being advised that the sea is safe, without anyone telling them that being able to swim is important, recording and displaying the safety signs etc because they're scared of scaring people.

(ie You ensure everyone on the boat can swim, that you have life jackets, cold weather and hyperthermia treatment, first aid kits are up to date, that you have signalling equipment for individuals, you have working processes relating to working in pairs etc etc).
Reply With Quote