JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Thank you. Some absolutely fascinating graphs and diagrams there.
And for our PB Village Tory,
"This goes beyond mere equity. The party faces a fight for its survival as the boomer cohort passes on. In the long run, how can a party which stands for the preservation and low taxation of capital survive if later cohorts do not accumulate any capital?
Inheritance won’t save it. The average millennial is set to receive theirs in their mid-sixties - well beyond their fertile years, and well beyond when they might hope to build a foundation for their later life (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020). Leaving aside the distributive impact of inheritance (which is essentially untaxed), where the privileged are given a springboard well beyond necessity."
It also ignores the fact most people are still on the property ladder, at least with a mortgage, by 39.
Yes fewer 20 and early 30 year olds own property and are voting Tory than in the early 1990s but more pensioners are voting Conservative and over 40s are still voting Tory. Hence the Tory majority in 2019 was bigger than in 1992
Slovenia votes on Sunday and we have the final Mediana poll out.
It puts Robert Golob's Svoboda movement just ahead of Janez Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party. Other polls suggest a small lead for Jansa but either way it looks very close.
Mediana has Svoboda on 26.1% with SDS on 24.4% .
Perhaps encouraging for Golob, the Social Democrats are on 7.8% and the Left on 7.7% tied with the pro-Jansa Christian Democrats. Alenka Bratusek's Party also looks likely to be in the new National Assembly with 5.8%.
Jansa and his allies are on just 35.2% and from this distance it seems possible Golob could build a majority centrist coalition perhaps with the Social Democrats and the Bratusek list supported by the Left.
We'll see if this poll is anywhere near the truth on Sunday evening.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
Are you positive that "croquetas" are not "croaking tiny tortoises"? Best ask your waiter!
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
For one thing, it completely leapfrogs the management and disciplinary chain. Is Mr R-M to be seen to be making disciplinary insinuations without informing the line manager?
Out for dinner again, and I’ve found another delicious meal. I had croquetas to start - one spinach, one chicken and one blue cheese. Next was “calamares embriagados”, or intoxicated squid - cooked with tomatoes, onions, garlic and loads of red wine. Now having stir fried cuttlefish with prawns, peas and mint.
Are you positive that "croquetas" are not "croaking tiny tortoises"? Best ask your waiter!
No, that'd be tortugas (as in Dry Tortugas islands).
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
For one thing, it completely leapfrogs the management and disciplinary chain. Is Mr R-M to be seen to be making disciplinary insinuations without informing the line manager?
If the 4% decline in Tory voteshare in London on 2018 in that poll is replicated in a 4% swing to Labour via tactical voting, then Labour would gain Wandsworth and Barnet. However the Tories would hold Westminster
It's not easy to generalise given you have 32 Boroughs and as you know there are still pockets of Independent and Residents candidates taking on Conservative and Labour alike.
25% would be an awful result for the Conservatives and the party would likely end up below 500 in Councillor numbers. If the benchmark for Conservative success is holding Westminster the party is in a sorry plight in the capital and astonishing considering Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round and the party got 32% when winning a national GE with an 80-seat majority.
I think we'll see more Conservative seat losses to the LDs, Greens (and Independents/Residents) than to Labour. It's also not inconceivable we could see some quite significant variations from Borough to Borough.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
He's a total pratt. And 10 years is being generous, 50 or more is more realistic.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Would be more personal IF he'd signed it.
Get points made re: working from home or otherwise out of the office, with which I mostly & broadly concur.
HOWEVER, while I should NOT be mistaken for a fan of JR-M think think that HE also has a point. And one that has demonstrated past appeal with large sections of voters across the UK (and elsewhere) regardless of party or ideology. Esp. IF by civil service you mean policy & administrative managers & staff, not teachers, public safety & similar.
Politically about the savviest thing I've ever heard of this Moog doing or saying. Probably due more to old-school spleen rather than with-it strategy. But there you are.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
But because he's the beneficiary of inherited wealth and privilege he's never had to succeed. He's a prime advert for getting rid of private schools and for taxing inheritance.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
He's a total pratt. And 10 years is being generous, 50 or more is more realistic.
I would think JRM would consider anything after 1750 too modern, let alone 1950!
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Would be more personal IF he'd signed it.
Get points made re: working from home or otherwise out of the office, with which I mostly & broadly concur.
HOWEVER, while I should NOT be mistaken for a fan of JR-M think think that HE also has a point. And one that has demonstrated past appeal with large sections of voters across the UK (and elsewhere) regardless of party or ideology. Esp. IF by civil service you mean policy & administrative managers & staff, not teachers, public safety & similar.
Politically about the savviest thing I've ever heard of this Moog doing or saying. Probably due more to old-school spleen rather than with-it strategy. But there you are.
I suspect the "large sections of voters" for whom this has an appeal include many long-since retired for whom the concept of being able to work from home is hard to fully comprehend.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Rees-Mogg is unfit to hold office. I look forward to his removal from a Ministerial post.
Rees-Mogg is unfit to hold office. I look forward to his removal from a Ministerial post.
He has only known Parliamentary life on the Government side. it would be fascinating to see how much he enjoys lif on the Opposition benches with no influence or importance of any kind.
All very nice CHB, but we'll see in 2024 shall we?
We'll see in a few weeks if the Tories lose Wandsworth
Not really indicative of a General Election though? In two years? A lot can happen in two years. Someone may have found a personality for SKS by then, from some expedition in the deepest Congo - contained in a data-tape left by some mysterious alien race, in a cave or some-such. And once installed into the SKS positronic brain he may turn out to be a complete cretin. Much like now...
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Actually, I do.
Sure you do. As do I.
You have lived for for a considerable time in a sub Saharan country, you have found it "wonderful" for you, and have seen nothing to suggest that a penniless refugee in a prison would find a bit less wonderfulness in the situation than you?
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Would be more personal IF he'd signed it.
Get points made re: working from home or otherwise out of the office, with which I mostly & broadly concur.
HOWEVER, while I should NOT be mistaken for a fan of JR-M think think that HE also has a point. And one that has demonstrated past appeal with large sections of voters across the UK (and elsewhere) regardless of party or ideology. Esp. IF by civil service you mean policy & administrative managers & staff, not teachers, public safety & similar.
Politically about the savviest thing I've ever heard of this Moog doing or saying. Probably due more to old-school spleen rather than with-it strategy. But there you are.
A couple of weeks ago, a group of civil servants of my acquaintance had to pitch up in the office on a Monday for some sort of team event. By the Friday all but one were off sick with Covid.
I think that is referred to as Common Mode Failure.
Organisations who insist on in person meetings for their entire senior leadership team are being bloody stupid.
@francska1 Russian state TV continues to be fixated on the UK
Last night the country's most popular channel suggested Boris Johnson's visit to India was an attempt to revive the British Empire's 19th century "Great Game" with Russia
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
Rees-Mogg is unfit to hold office. I look forward to his removal from a Ministerial post.
I used to take comfort from that he was not actually a proper Cabinet Member, which must have wrankled with him, since he is obviously a man who enjoys status and he was really just the dogsbody to the Cabinet, but sadly he is now in it, even though he's merely a Minister of State.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
All very nice CHB, but we'll see in 2024 shall we?
We'll see in a few weeks if the Tories lose Wandsworth
Not really indicative of a General Election though? In two years? A lot can happen in two years. Someone may have found a personality for SKS by then, from some expedition in the deepest Congo - contained in a data-tape left by some mysterious alien race, in a cave or some-such. And once installed into the SKS positronic brain he may turn out to be a complete cretin. Much like now...
'Uncharismatic and somewhat boring' might well prove to be more of a draw with voters than the the 'lazy, lying, villain' currently in No 10.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
For one thing, it completely leapfrogs the management and disciplinary chain. Is Mr R-M to be seen to be making disciplinary insinuations without informing the line manager?
Sir Humphrey may have taken it a tad too far when telling Hacker he was not there to run the department, but he was correct that it is not for a Minister to behave in such a way. He can and should knock senior heads together if they are doing a civil service go slow to frustrate politicians, but there are appropriate levels.
Gove is a minister who is known, even by those who dislike him, to get things done, and whilst he has annoyed many civil servants I wonder if he indulges in such petty power plays.
It's the sort of thing a child would come up with to demonstrate their power. I wonder if JRM the sort to tell bad jokes around underlings just for the pleasure of seeing them force themselves to laugh.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
You'd hope that maybe the Minister for Government Efficiency might see hybrid working as an opportunity to downsize and sell off some of HMG's rather valuable central London estate.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
We used to put full stops after every initial, eg B.B.C. and M.P. as well as e.g.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
But because he's the beneficiary of inherited wealth and privilege he's never had to succeed. He's a prime advert for getting rid of private schools and for taxing inheritance.
That is not really true, Rees Mogg worked in the City and set up his own fund management firm, Somerset Capital Management, which made him a multimillionaire in his own right.
One of his grandfather's worked as a dairyman and lorry driver, so not all his family ancestry was posh either
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
We used to put full stops after every initial, eg B.B.C. and M.P. as well as e.g.
What a ghastly and inefficient time that must have been. He's all about efficiency, he can start with saving printer ink on unnecessary punctuation.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
I expect he will be regarded as a lightweight by the new PM though. Limited shelf life.
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
My point was the more general one that it is possible to condemn a plan beore it has been put into execution.
But yes, on reflection, it is the most flagrant hyperbole to connect an episode of unimaginably horrific genocide, with little old Rwanda. What was I thinking?
I don't know. What are you thinking? Very little it appears.
I suspect that your problem (or rather one of them) is that you have no first hand idea of what the third world is actually like, because you have never been there. What it is, is third world. Really third world. You know the prison in Midnight Express? Same but more so.
The Third World? I assume you mean "developing nations", after all we don't want to use disparaging terminology do we? You assume an awful lot, maybe because you have in your mind the idea that anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have the obvious intellect and experience you do.
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
Actually, I do.
You have lived for for a considerable time in a sub Saharan country, you have found it "wonderful" for you, and have seen nothing to suggest that a penniless refugee in a prison would find a bit less wonderfulness in the situation than you?
give over, love. You're embarrassing yourself.
I'm not your love - despite what you may desire.
You're the one embarrassing yourself I'm afraid. As it happens I've been to Rwanda (and Uganda) on more than a couple of occasions - not that I really need to explain that to you. Rwanda is a wonderful country - I enjoyed my stays immensely. It's most likely safer than many areas of London.
I suppose what we're arguing about is whether an asylum seeker from wherever they may come from, seeking refuge from persecution or death, would feel safe in Rwanda. I'm sure they would! After all, they are seeking safety aren't they? Now Rwanda isn't as economically prosperous or as wealthy as the UK. That is granted. But asylum seekers aren't seeking economic advantage are they? They're after safety. Rwanda absolutely gives them that. So where's the problem? Unless you're saying of course that asylum seekers aren't really seeking safety, and that they're seeking economic betterment.
But hey! According to you, Rwanda's the new base of crypto-Nazi death camps sponsored by the UK government. So let's go with that. That makes you feel better and I'm all for that.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
But because he's the beneficiary of inherited wealth and privilege he's never had to succeed. He's a prime advert for getting rid of private schools and for taxing inheritance.
That is not really true, Rees Mogg worked in the City and set up his own fund management firm, Somerset Capital Management, which made him a multimillionaire in his own right.
One of his grandfather's worked as a dairyman and lorry driver, so not all his family ancestry was posh either
But by the tilme he was born his family was posh. Which is the relevant bit.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
It is a breathtaking example of petty, juvenile, bullying. I hope the civil service union is all over it
For one thing, it completely leapfrogs the management and disciplinary chain. Is Mr R-M to be seen to be making disciplinary insinuations without informing the line manager?
Sir Humphrey may have taken it a tad too far when telling Hacker he was not there to run the department, but he was correct that it is not for a Minister to behave in such a way. He can and should knock senior heads together if they are doing a civil service go slow to frustrate politicians, but there are appropriate levels.
Gove is a minister who is known, even by those who dislike him, to get things done, and whilst he has annoyed many civil servants I wonder if he indulges in such petty power plays.
It's the sort of thing a child would come up with to demonstrate their power. I wonder if JRM the sort to tell bad jokes around underlings just for the pleasure of seeing them force themselves to laugh.
That behaviour would be unfair if there was no malfeasance on the employee's part. And it would completely taint any proceedings in the case where the employee was being dismissed. The union lawyer would make absolute hay of it at the industrial tribunal. THere is such a thing as the rule of law.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
We used to put full stops after every initial, eg B.B.C. and M.P. as well as e.g.
What a ghastly and inefficient time that must have been. He's all about efficiency, he can start with saving printer ink on unnecessary punctuation.
I'm surprised Mr Rees-Mogg isn't sending junior staff out to the Serpentine to catch geese to make the approved pens for civil servants.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is about 10 years out of date and just doesn't understand the modern world. Most employers have now moved on to remote and hybrid working. Employers that insist on presenteeism cannot retain staff. Civil service wages of £20-£30 k in London don't help. JRM would be a complete failure were he to be trying to manage a real business in the current climate.
But because he's the beneficiary of inherited wealth and privilege he's never had to succeed. He's a prime advert for getting rid of private schools and for taxing inheritance.
That is not really true, Rees Mogg worked in the City and set up his own fund management firm, Somerset Capital Management, which made him a multimillionaire in his own right.
One of his grandfather's worked as a dairyman and lorry driver, so not all his family ancestry was posh either
But by the tilme he was born his family was posh. Which is the relevant bit.
JRM got his City job (in Hong Kong) via his father's connections.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
Home Office staff have threatened a mutiny over Priti Patel’s plans to ship refugees to Rwanda, with one drawing comparisons to working for the Third Reich, it has emerged.
Home Office staff should do as they're told and paid for.
Hopefully the Home Office is moved to Rwanda next; they'd probably do a better job.
They can team up with the Danes. Those well-known right-wing extremists.
You mean you expect the British Government to announce it will ship people to Rwanda, and then not actually do it?
The British Government hasn't done anything with this idea yet. Much like the Danes.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though.
OK, so: thought experiment. Late January 1942, you get shown accurate and detailed minutes of the Wannsee Conference.
"The Nazis haven't done anything with this idea yet.
Doesn't stop the usual whingeing and thoroughly predictable hand-wringing though."
Adequate response?
So you're comparing the proposed processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda to the Holocaust. Well once again you show yourself to be thoroughly level-headed and completely sane.
Up front I am not condoning Ishmeals use of The Holocaust as comparator, Its too insensitive to use The Holocaust like that. but let me explain to you my position on this Ozy. Because my position on Rwanda plan is the wisest and I urge you to back me.
In practice it needs to act as as deterrent, reduce, dramatically the amount of boat people heading illegally across channel to UK. Not a shred of evidence can be produced to show it will work.
So why are the Tories doing it? Because their record on this is abysmal, leaving them with no other political option but to try to divert attention away from an abysmal record. The Tories have been in since 2010. Boris and Patel in their posts two and half years, and their record on reducing crossings and battling the gangs and working with continental friends on this issue abysmal.
Secondly Here’s the kicker, The Tories have no plan to send migrants to Rwanda. The government does. If Boris and Patel fall out their jobs in next few months, the new Tory government I guarantee you 100% will drop this plan. Whatever part it plays on the Leadership hustings will be to help the losers lose. Why? How do I know this? Because in this weeks commons debate I watched live Patel gave us two massive take outs. Firstly UK government can never publish any finer details or costs because it will aid the criminal gangs. Secondly, women and children WILL be considered, but each case taken on its own merits.
Patel barely has 50% of her parliamentary party supporting this, because they havn’t seen a detail plan, so they fear it will be expensive, over administrative, many controversial bad headlines causing Tory Party reputation damage, and won’t ever work as much deterrent so a poor use of tax payers money. They also know it’s only suggested to cover up government failure to deal with this properly via cooperation with continental partners in crushing the gangs.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
I knew someone at university who insisted that acronyms that were pronounced as words should be all capitals, like NATO - and ones pronounced as initials should have dots, like N.U.S.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Isn't he? Remember that for Boris, everything is transactional. JRM's role, as a leading member of the ERG, is to shield Boris from accusations of backsliding over Brexit.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
How would we ever know?
Mogg did at least have his in wedlock with the same woman
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
Thoroughly agree. HYUFD in particular should read it and contemplate his future in the party. Or rather his party in the future.
It is an article almost solely focused on under 35s. Yes fewer of them own a property than 30 years ago and vote Labour as a result but most over 40s still own property and still voted Conservative in 2019.
In 1997 the Tories even lost over 65s to Blair as well as every other age group. Yet the Tories win pensioners by a landslide even now
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
We used to put full stops after every initial, eg B.B.C. and M.P. as well as e.g.
What a ghastly and inefficient time that must have been. He's all about efficiency, he can start with saving printer ink on unnecessary punctuation.
I'm surprised Mr Rees-Mogg isn't sending junior staff out to the Serpentine to catch geese to make the approved pens for civil servants.
I recall a scurrilous story (told to me by a very posh person) regarding a perversion involving geese and drawers slammed shut. I prefer to think of JRM sending his junior staff out for that purpose.
A simpering affectatious halfwit born on a pile of money, who has been handed every privilege imaginable and boasts that he is too lazy to have ever changed his own children’s nappies, is possibly not best placed to pass judgement on how hard people are working. https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1517605932255092738
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
How would we ever know?
Mogg did at least have his in wedlock with the same woman
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
I knew someone at university who insisted that acronyms that were pronounced as words should be all capitals, like NATO - and ones pronounced as initials should have dots, like N.U.S.
Strange chap.
What I find annoying is people who pronounce the initials for something when everyone else says it as a word.
GIIGNL being a case in point. One person would never say Gignil. Spelt it out. Every time.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
How would we ever know?
Mogg did at least have his in wedlock with the same woman
Thoroughly agree. HYUFD in particular should read it and contemplate his future in the party. Or rather his party in the future.
It is an article almost solely focused on under 35s. Yes fewer of them own a property than 30 years ago and vote Labour as a result but most over 40s still own property and still voted Conservative in 2019.
In 1997 the Tories even lost over 65s to Blair as well as every other age group. Yet the Tories win pensioners by a landslide even now
The article is focused on the under 40s. Actually I think it could have focused on the under 45s without its conclusions changing.
"We'll reap the whirlwind on polling day", Steve Baker tells Telegraph tonight.
What I don’t understand, the War in Ukraine is still the same war that blanketed our Print and TV media for a month, in fact it’s even more newsworthy now imo reporting has moved from speculating what was happening unseen, to the detail of hideous crimes of the Russian invasion, but all this Partygate and Boris under pressure stuff is getting all over the news again, as if our media is losing interest in the war. Why can’t media narratives stick to the weightier more important things, and show more balance in their reporting?
It’s like the old mainstream media feel they can decide for us what the main media narrative actually is?
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
I know - my comment was aimed more at the PB pontificators sitting at home who think civil servants should be back in the office. But that would be discourteous, so I chose JRM as the target.
JRM's been very busy, I'll have you know:
He might, perhaps, be able to connect the dots as to his presence and everyone wanting to be elsewhere?
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
I knew someone at university who insisted that acronyms that were pronounced as words should be all capitals, like NATO - and ones pronounced as initials should have dots, like N.U.S.
Strange chap.
What I find annoying is people who pronounce the initials for something when everyone else says it as a word.
GIIGNL being a case in point. One person would never say Gignil. Spelt it out. Every time.
JRM is an unthinking idiot. There's a vast array of jobs in the Civil Service; for some, attendance at the office is essential, for others, it's not - it depends on the precise role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the changes brought about by the pandemic have increased productivity overall, and will also result in longer-term savings on office costs etc. as well.
For example, if you have a desk-based analytical job, you're likely to be more productive at home, avoiding office-based interruptions. I've a relation who's working on a major CS energy project - he reckons he gets 50% more work done at home than in the office (as well as the improvement in work-life balance by avoiding commuting). He goes in for face-to face meetings whenever necessary, maybe once a fortnight, with other business conducted remotely. I know that's anecdotal, but it's not untypical at all.
JRM is just a lightweight - pay him no mind!
Unfortunately he is not regarded as a lightweight by the PM, however.
Is the Moggster the only MP with as many children as Bozo?
How would we ever know?
Mogg did at least have his in wedlock with the same woman
What a shocking comment
Two of my grandchildren were born to our son and his partner before they married 10 years later
If Carrie brought friends then it cannot possibly have been a work event as Johnson tells us.
Non-colleagues attendance must absolutely be the definition of a non-work event i.e. a social occassion.
Not that a work "event" existed at the time as a vehicle for having a party with colleagues. There was no such arrangement in the laws.
Lillico made an interesting point yesterday (based on Baker's speech): lockdowns went on far too long in part because those running the country were not actually effected by them so they had no idea how depressed and miserable people were becoming. They basically carried on as normal except the pub was closed.
Theoretically you could have Carrie and her friends at one table and her husband and his employees at another & then you are having two separate events in a shared space?
Like that happened.
Almost certainly not.
Although I do recall from the balcony photo that Carrie & her friends were at a separate table with Boris
Are you defining 'friends' as 'those at the table'? Bit circular.
IIRC there was at least one senior aide/civil servant at the table as well.
I thought it was that mate of her from the cabinet office? But it was not something I’m interested in so quite possibly am wrong!
Comments
I'm back playing cricket from next week, we've entered Last Man Stands
Perhaps Rwanda isn't the apparent hell-hole you assume it to be - maybe you've spent time living there recently and barely escaped with your life? Maybe I've lived there for a considerable time and found it a wonderful country. Maybe. But you have no idea do you?
https://twitter.com/andrewmaybin/status/1517591964170035203
Not that I have anything against India, you'll understand. I just don't want him anywhere near me.
Perhaps they could exchange him for some Russian weaponry, fulfilling all criteria?
Yes fewer 20 and early 30 year olds own property and are voting Tory than in the early 1990s but more pensioners are voting Conservative and over 40s are still voting Tory. Hence the Tory majority in 2019 was bigger than in 1992
@AndrewMarr9, @anoosh_c, and @freddiejh8 discuss partygate, Boris Johnson’s survival, and who the next Tory leader could be.
Watch here: https://youtu.be/Rxq-8kXYc1I https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1517594092468940800/video/1
It puts Robert Golob's Svoboda movement just ahead of Janez Jansa's Slovenian Democratic Party. Other polls suggest a small lead for Jansa but either way it looks very close.
Mediana has Svoboda on 26.1% with SDS on 24.4% .
Perhaps encouraging for Golob, the Social Democrats are on 7.8% and the Left on 7.7% tied with the pro-Jansa Christian Democrats. Alenka Bratusek's Party also looks likely to be in the new National Assembly with 5.8%.
Jansa and his allies are on just 35.2% and from this distance it seems possible Golob could build a majority centrist coalition perhaps with the Social Democrats and the Bratusek list supported by the Left.
We'll see if this poll is anywhere near the truth on Sunday evening.
25% would be an awful result for the Conservatives and the party would likely end up below 500 in Councillor numbers. If the benchmark for Conservative success is holding Westminster the party is in a sorry plight in the capital and astonishing considering Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round and the party got 32% when winning a national GE with an 80-seat majority.
I think we'll see more Conservative seat losses to the LDs, Greens (and Independents/Residents) than to Labour. It's also not inconceivable we could see some quite significant variations from Borough to Borough.
Get points made re: working from home or otherwise out of the office, with which I mostly & broadly concur.
HOWEVER, while I should NOT be mistaken for a fan of JR-M think think that HE also has a point. And one that has demonstrated past appeal with large sections of voters across the UK (and elsewhere) regardless of party or ideology. Esp. IF by civil service you mean policy & administrative managers & staff, not teachers, public safety & similar.
Politically about the savviest thing I've ever heard of this Moog doing or saying. Probably due more to old-school spleen rather than with-it strategy. But there you are.
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1517599219305041927
Workington man is becoming Labour man.
Goodbye Red Wall
Sorry you were non-existent when I came looking for you.
Rt. Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg M.P.
Minister for Brexit Opportunities and
Government Efficiency
give over, love. You're embarrassing yourself.
I think that is referred to as Common Mode Failure.
Organisations who insist on in person meetings for their entire senior leadership team are being bloody stupid.
And since when do we put a dot in MP?
https://www.atlasbig.com/en-gb/countries-by-banana-production
More significant for Labour would be if they gained Barnet, as all 3 MPs in Barnet borough are Tories
Only way they will get the courage to rid themselves of the greased albatross now hanging around their necks.
Gove is a minister who is known, even by those who dislike him, to get things done, and whilst he has annoyed many civil servants I wonder if he indulges in such petty power plays.
It's the sort of thing a child would come up with to demonstrate their power. I wonder if JRM the sort to tell bad jokes around underlings just for the pleasure of seeing them force themselves to laugh.
Every PBer should read it.
https://himbonomics.substack.com/p/-the-triumph-of-janet-?s=r
One of his grandfather's worked as a dairyman and lorry driver, so not all his family ancestry was posh either
Perhaps very limited....
You're the one embarrassing yourself I'm afraid. As it happens I've been to Rwanda (and Uganda) on more than a couple of occasions - not that I really need to explain that to you. Rwanda is a wonderful country - I enjoyed my stays immensely. It's most likely safer than many areas of London.
I suppose what we're arguing about is whether an asylum seeker from wherever they may come from, seeking refuge from persecution or death, would feel safe in Rwanda. I'm sure they would! After all, they are seeking safety aren't they? Now Rwanda isn't as economically prosperous or as wealthy as the UK. That is granted. But asylum seekers aren't seeking economic advantage are they? They're after safety. Rwanda absolutely gives them that. So where's the problem? Unless you're saying of course that asylum seekers aren't really seeking safety, and that they're seeking economic betterment.
But hey! According to you, Rwanda's the new base of crypto-Nazi death camps sponsored by the UK government. So let's go with that. That makes you feel better and I'm all for that.
So they have lost support but are still nowhere near 1997 nadir
“this ain’t your father’s Republican Party”
In practice it needs to act as as deterrent, reduce, dramatically the amount of boat people heading illegally across channel to UK. Not a shred of evidence can be produced to show it will work.
So why are the Tories doing it? Because their record on this is abysmal, leaving them with no other political option but to try to divert attention away from an abysmal record. The Tories have been in since 2010. Boris and Patel in their posts two and half years, and their record on reducing crossings and battling the gangs and working with continental friends on this issue abysmal.
Secondly Here’s the kicker, The Tories have no plan to send migrants to Rwanda. The government does. If Boris and Patel fall out their jobs in next few months, the new Tory government I guarantee you 100% will drop this plan. Whatever part it plays on the Leadership hustings will be to help the losers lose. Why? How do I know this? Because in this weeks commons debate I watched live Patel gave us two massive take outs. Firstly UK government can never publish any finer details or costs because it will aid the criminal gangs. Secondly, women and children WILL be considered, but each case taken on its own merits.
Patel barely has 50% of her parliamentary party supporting this, because they havn’t seen a detail plan, so they fear it will be expensive, over administrative, many controversial bad headlines causing Tory Party reputation damage, and won’t ever work as much deterrent so a poor use of tax payers money. They also know it’s only suggested to cover up government failure to deal with this properly via cooperation with continental partners in crushing the gangs.
Strange chap.
In 1997 the Tories even lost over 65s to Blair as well as every other age group. Yet the Tories win pensioners by a landslide even now
He’s a fanatic.
But the broad audience of PB, which certainly trends middle aged and “soft c” conservative, should certainly read it and be enlightened.
Stats for Lefties
@LeftieStats
I estimate that the following councils would change hands:
🔴Barnet (Lab gain from Con)
🔴Wandsworth (Lab gain from Con)
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1517568677348089863
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1517605932255092738
GIIGNL being a case in point. One person would never say Gignil. Spelt it out. Every time.
Actually I think it could have focused on the under 45s without its conclusions changing.
It’s like the old mainstream media feel they can decide for us what the main media narrative actually is?
Two of my grandchildren were born to our son and his partner before they married 10 years later
You are a narrow minded bigot