Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
I'd be quite happy as a compromise for him to live in Downing Street and commute to work in say, the BMW dealers in Stoke.
Not that I would buy a used car off him.
Johnson's argument is both pathetic and disingenuous. The more I work from home the more the struggling high street in my home town benefits because I shop locally and order lunch from local outlets. Johnson is only interested in reviving the kind of businesses that have influential CEOs like Pret.
Also I don't understand the argument that WFH is bad because some sectors or professions can't take advantage of it. I have to be on call during weekends and bank holidays but I don't resent people who don't have to take work calls during leisure time.
I'm working hybrid at the moment and quite frankly 90% of the time I'm in the office is a fucking waste of money. I go to my desk and do the exact same work I would have done at home except I'm £40 poorer and sodding Thameslink is £40 richer.
Yes but that £40 matters if we want Thameslink to be viable. If no-one uses public transport then subsidies will need to be increased, even as the level of service drops.
PS. There's something strangely unnerving about having a PM who lies freely.It creates a disconnect between citizen and government. It takes away any pride or patriotism you might feel. This is what life must have felt like under a Mugabe or Saddam.
Crikey, you really spout some shite. Johnson is not a great PM but to compare that to life under Saddam or Mugabe. Barking.
Yes indeed, more like Berlusconi. We have a good international reference, above the law, parties, lack of seriousness, prioritises the media over reality, flirts with authoritarianism without going the whole hog, useless government and ending up with a very divided nation.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
How? What has WFH got to do with culture wars? I'd suggest the government is more worried about the viability of town centres and public transport.
The Culture War element is the elderly Tory vote (largely retired and, er at home) having their dissatisfaction with various government services and private companies blamed on the feckless skivers "working from home", rather than improve the services. It becomes a wedge issue like blaming poor services on immigrants and dole bludgers, a long standing right wing trope.
Sacking 20% of Civil Servants might also have a notable effect on public services too.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
My private firm (a big global publisher), stopped leasing expensive buildings, engaged a Harvard prof to recommend what a good balance might be in theory, started a pretty informed debate about the relative benefits of working at home for different roles and experience levels and having just reopened the office has given teams three months to figure out what is best for them. Productivity is up.
I don’t see why the government can’t do the same.
How many Express and Mail readers are going to get motivated by that? Next!
Well quite. I think you begin to see why British productivity generally lags behind the rest of world. Escaping this myopic, dumbed down, class ridden and hyped political culture may not sell comics like the Mail and may be dull, but it’s essential if we want make progress in the world.
It’s been like this for years. I’m glad to be largely out of it.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
Typical of Johnson that he can't imagine that other people aren't as lazy and dysfunctional as he is. I WFH two days a week and am no less efficient on those days, indeed for tasks that require focus I would say I am more productive when I don't have all the noise of a trading floor. Plus I avoid the commute, can do household tasks or talk to my kids in moments of downtime, and enjoy the birds singing outside my garden office. The other three days are more than enough for face time with colleagues.
There’s serious issues with WFH specifically in the civil service, many of whom see it as collecting a salary without working, and many others have taken the opportunity to move away from a commutable distance. With no profit motive, many staff are coasting and there is a noticable impact on customer-facing government services.
There’s also a lot of macroeconomic reasons that WFH is bad for the government, including train service under-utilisation, business rates on office space, and all of the support industries in the City such as F&B outlets paying VAT.
On the flip side, the environmental impact of commuting is huge, and it’s something that is the most hated part of the day for most workers. Many companies are using hybrid working as a recruitment tool, and can find a much larger talent pool as a result.
Emily Thornberry @EmilyThornberry Planning my dish-from-each-country-in-the-final Eurovision meal for Saturday night. It does rather colour my views about who I'd rather get through the 2nd semi final. 🤷🏼♀️
I loathe the whole thing of course but can't resist a little punt.
The Norway effort looks utter mind-numbing shite so I've backed that for Top Ten @ 1.8 and Top Three @ 11.
Italy (same ghastly bunch as last year) to beat UK/Spain/France and Germany ('Big Five') @ 3.05
Ukraine are too short surely? Lay Top Three @ 1.12
I love Eurovision in all its camp absurd glory. It isn't to be taken too seriously. Just enjoy the spectacle. Themed Eurovision parties with foods from all the entrants are part of the fun, good on Thornberry for making the effort.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
How? What has WFH got to do with culture wars? I'd suggest the government is more worried about the viability of town centres and public transport.
The Culture War element is the elderly Tory vote (largely retired and, er at home) having their dissatisfaction with various government services and private companies blamed on the feckless skivers "working from home", rather than improve the services. It becomes a wedge issue like blaming poor services on immigrants and dole bludgers, a long standing right wing trope.
Sacking 20% of Civil Servants might also have a notable effect on public services too.
Why not put 100,000 people on a mission to clear up the messes post Brexit/ pandemic. I imagine 100,000 people could make a difference in the experience of the public across a range of government services.
Of course this government will not do that, because politically they do not want government services to be good.
Emily Thornberry @EmilyThornberry Planning my dish-from-each-country-in-the-final Eurovision meal for Saturday night. It does rather colour my views about who I'd rather get through the 2nd semi final. 🤷🏼♀️
I loathe the whole thing of course but can't resist a little punt.
The Norway effort looks utter mind-numbing shite so I've backed that for Top Ten @ 1.8 and Top Three @ 11.
Italy (same ghastly bunch as last year) to beat UK/Spain/France and Germany ('Big Five') @ 3.05
Ukraine are too short surely? Lay Top Three @ 1.12
I love Eurovision in all its camp absurd glory. It isn't to be taken too seriously. Just enjoy the spectacle. Themed Eurovision parties with foods from all the entrants are part of the fun, good on Thornberry for making the effort.
Aided and abetted by the right wing press. The DM also gleefully announces that 50 migrants could be shipped off to Rwanda in two weeks , I’m sure no 10 could do better than that , why not just put them against a wall and shoot them , save on the airfares which could go to the cost of living crisis !
There is something deeply disturbing about the trajectory of the UK under the Tories . It’s all about hate and negativity , who can be next to be set upon to appease the angry mob , of course we still have those terrible leftie lawyers trying to outwit the queen of Mean Patel , next up the Human Rights Act which will get a new name but hollowed out.
I rewatched The Uncivil War last night. It highlights the brilliant ruthlessness of the Vote Leave campaign. Take Back Control was a brilliant slogan - pity the government have failed to deliver on it.
On your trajectory point, the drama plays on this towards the end. There is a fictionalised remain focus group where Craig Oliver gets sick of the responses he is hearing to the remain push lines and storms in to argue with the panelists, many of whom are way beyond facts or reason. That the push lines were also way beyond facts or reason was a big problem...
Yes, we have unleashed pandora from her box. An angry, poorly informed "down with the facts" mood which is being fuelled for electoral reasons by a Tory party dumb enough to think the mob can be controlled.
The whole Brexit debacle is, for me, why Cameron is the worst PM in living memory. Held a vote we didn’t want or need, ran an awful campaign and quit when the going got tough.
Yes. The scene in the programme that made me grin most was Cummings setting out what a completely stupid idea the referendum was. Very clear about what idiocy and forces it would unleash because you can't distil complex issues into binary questions.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
By the nature of my job, WFH isn't possible, and I have been face to face all throughout. I did a limited number of telephone clinics in the first wave but felt at the time that they were pretty pointless, and not good medicine.
Some of my Medical School work has gone online, but I prefer to do that from my office at the hospital. No dog, fewer distractions, better internet, access to confidential records etc. Online teaching is mostly a downgrade on face to face. The brighter students dominate all the more, but the lumpen mass become even more lumpen.
Mornin' all! Bright here today, although not as, as yesterday.
I've had several 'on the phone' medical appointments; no idea, of course where the GP or consultant have been, although I'm pretty sure the GP was working from their surgery. Not as satisfactory from this patient's point of view; can only gauge the GP's opinion from the timbre of their voice, can't see their eyes. I wish our local surgery would give a FaceTime or Zoom option. I've also run, and participated in, quite a lot of u3a Zoom meetings, both 'ordinary' and committees and I get the impression that more 'committee work' is done on-line, in the sense of deciding on what to do and who is going to do it. As far as 'education', in the u3a, or WEA, sense, is considered, 'W'FH has enlarged the possibilities immeasurably.
Aided and abetted by the right wing press. The DM also gleefully announces that 50 migrants could be shipped off to Rwanda in two weeks , I’m sure no 10 could do better than that , why not just put them against a wall and shoot them , save on the airfares which could go to the cost of living crisis !
There is something deeply disturbing about the trajectory of the UK under the Tories . It’s all about hate and negativity , who can be next to be set upon to appease the angry mob , of course we still have those terrible leftie lawyers trying to outwit the queen of Mean Patel , next up the Human Rights Act which will get a new name but hollowed out.
I rewatched The Uncivil War last night. It highlights the brilliant ruthlessness of the Vote Leave campaign. Take Back Control was a brilliant slogan - pity the government have failed to deliver on it.
On your trajectory point, the drama plays on this towards the end. There is a fictionalised remain focus group where Craig Oliver gets sick of the responses he is hearing to the remain push lines and storms in to argue with the panelists, many of whom are way beyond facts or reason. That the push lines were also way beyond facts or reason was a big problem...
Yes, we have unleashed pandora from her box. An angry, poorly informed "down with the facts" mood which is being fuelled for electoral reasons by a Tory party dumb enough to think the mob can be controlled.
The whole Brexit debacle is, for me, why Cameron is the worst PM in living memory. Held a vote we didn’t want or need, ran an awful campaign and quit when the going got tough.
Yes. The scene in the programme that made me grin most was Cummings setting out what a completely stupid idea the referendum was. Very clear about what idiocy and forces it would unleash because you can't distil complex issues into binary questions.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
A spectacular unforced error rooted in Cameron’s ego and self serving political manipulation. He played with fire to win UKIP votes, burned his house down and the fire spread to the neighbourhood. It’s still smouldering.
PS. There's something strangely unnerving about having a PM who lies freely.It creates a disconnect between citizen and government. It takes away any pride or patriotism you might feel. This is what life must have felt like under a Mugabe or Saddam.
Crikey, you really spout some shite. Johnson is not a great PM but to compare that to life under Saddam or Mugabe. Barking.
The politics aren't the same. But the method of government? Its not barking. We have a government who not only openly lies to its own people, but has weaponised the lies to wage culture war against the truth.
The enduring image of the end of the Saddam regime was "Comical Ali" standing there lying to the media who could see that what he was saying was total guff. How is that any different from Boris Johnson lying to the media, or sending out ministers to lie through their faces defending a position which is toast by mid-morning?
I have no problem disagreeing with political positions honestly held. But lying liars? That's a lot worse. Saying something they know isn't true. Hoping to profit from the damage done to society by the lie. Whilst breaking down the framework that holds our society together.
Nice meal out two yesterday evening in a pretty bog-standard place which cost £80 inc tip.
Made me think of Anabob's lament a couple of days ago that people won't spend more than £40 a head for a meal. My first reaction was £40 sounds a lot to me! but that seems to be the going rate for a pub meal when you factor everything in. My burger main course last night was £20.
Was the £80 spent last night £80 better than staying in and watching telly? That's the question.
Emily Thornberry @EmilyThornberry Planning my dish-from-each-country-in-the-final Eurovision meal for Saturday night. It does rather colour my views about who I'd rather get through the 2nd semi final. 🤷🏼♀️
I loathe the whole thing of course but can't resist a little punt.
The Norway effort looks utter mind-numbing shite so I've backed that for Top Ten @ 1.8 and Top Three @ 11.
Italy (same ghastly bunch as last year) to beat UK/Spain/France and Germany ('Big Five') @ 3.05
Ukraine are too short surely? Lay Top Three @ 1.12
I love Eurovision in all its camp absurd glory. It isn't to be taken too seriously. Just enjoy the spectacle. Themed Eurovision parties with foods from all the entrants are part of the fun, good on Thornberry for making the effort.
I try to tune in when the voting starts. The voting appeals to me greatly.
PS. There's something strangely unnerving about having a PM who lies freely.It creates a disconnect between citizen and government. It takes away any pride or patriotism you might feel. This is what life must have felt like under a Mugabe or Saddam.
Crikey, you really spout some shite. Johnson is not a great PM but to compare that to life under Saddam or Mugabe. Barking.
The politics aren't the same. But the method of government? Its not barking. We have a government who not only openly lies to its own people, but has weaponised the lies to wage culture war against the truth.
The enduring image of the end of the Saddam regime was "Comical Ali" standing there lying to the media who could see that what he was saying was total guff. How is that any different from Boris Johnson lying to the media, or sending out ministers to lie through their faces defending a position which is toast by mid-morning?
I have no problem disagreeing with political positions honestly held. But lying liars? That's a lot worse. Saying something they know isn't true. Hoping to profit from the damage done to society by the lie. Whilst breaking down the framework that holds our society together.
Saddam's methods of government included mass killings of his people using chemical weapons, or forcing parents to stand around and clap as their children were machine gunned into mass graves.
Johnson isn't a nice person and he's a terrible PM but he's not *that* bad.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
My private firm (a big global publisher), stopped leasing expensive buildings, engaged a Harvard prof to recommend what a good balance might be in theory, started a pretty informed debate about the relative benefits of working at home for different roles and experience levels and having just reopened the office has given teams three months to figure out what is best for them. Productivity is up.
I don’t see why the government can’t do the same.
How many Express and Mail readers are going to get motivated by that? Next!
Well quite. I think you begin to see why British productivity generally lags behind the rest of world. Escaping this myopic, dumbed down, class ridden and hyped political culture may not sell comics like the Mail and may be dull, but it’s essential if we want make progress in the world.
It’s been like this for years. I’m glad to be largely out of it.
Johnson needs to be careful. His constant making things up is tying himself in knots. He now says WFH doesn't work and he doesn't get much done because of the call of the fridge.
Yet, three weeks ago we were being told he can't be fined for parties because his office is also his home.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
My private firm (a big global publisher), stopped leasing expensive buildings, engaged a Harvard prof to recommend what a good balance might be in theory, started a pretty informed debate about the relative benefits of working at home for different roles and experience levels and having just reopened the office has given teams three months to figure out what is best for them. Productivity is up.
I don’t see why the government can’t do the same.
How many Express and Mail readers are going to get motivated by that? Next!
Well quite. I think you begin to see why British productivity generally lags behind the rest of world. Escaping this myopic, dumbed down, class ridden and hyped political culture may not sell comics like the Mail and may be dull, but it’s essential if we want make progress in the world.
It’s been like this for years. I’m glad to be largely out of it.
Johnson needs to be careful. His constant making things up is tying himself in knots. He now says WFH doesn't work and he doesn't get much done because of the call of the fridge.
Yet, three weeks ago we were being told he can't be fined for parties because his office is also his home.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
? As was the case before the pandemic.
This is about people using the pandemic as an excuse to alter their working arrangements.
My area of the civil service dangled two days WFH as a trade off for other contract reforms before the pandemic. The government used to be in favour of it as it reduced the need for expensive office space. It's just that now they've identified it as a good wedge issue for their culture wars.
My private firm (a big global publisher), stopped leasing expensive buildings, engaged a Harvard prof to recommend what a good balance might be in theory, started a pretty informed debate about the relative benefits of working at home for different roles and experience levels and having just reopened the office has given teams three months to figure out what is best for them. Productivity is up.
I don’t see why the government can’t do the same.
How many Express and Mail readers are going to get motivated by that? Next!
Well quite. I think you begin to see why British productivity generally lags behind the rest of world. Escaping this myopic, dumbed down, class ridden and hyped political culture may not sell comics like the Mail and may be dull, but it’s essential if we want make progress in the world.
It’s been like this for years. I’m glad to be largely out of it.
Johnson needs to be careful. His constant making things up is tying himself in knots. He now says WFH doesn't work and he doesn't get much done because of the call of the fridge.
Yet, three weeks ago we were being told he can't be fined for parties because his office is also his home.
He must think that just enough voters have the attention span and logical capacity of a fungus gnat.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
Typical of Johnson that he can't imagine that other people aren't as lazy and dysfunctional as he is. I WFH two days a week and am no less efficient on those days, indeed for tasks that require focus I would say I am more productive when I don't have all the noise of a trading floor. Plus I avoid the commute, can do household tasks or talk to my kids in moments of downtime, and enjoy the birds singing outside my garden office. The other three days are more than enough for face time with colleagues.
There’s serious issues with WFH specifically in the civil service, many of whom see it as collecting a salary without working, and many others have taken the opportunity to move away from a commutable distance. With no profit motive, many staff are coasting and there is a noticable impact on customer-facing government services.
There’s also a lot of macroeconomic reasons that WFH is bad for the government, including train service under-utilisation, business rates on office space, and all of the support industries in the City such as F&B outlets paying VAT.
On the flip side, the environmental impact of commuting is huge, and it’s something that is the most hated part of the day for most workers. Many companies are using hybrid working as a recruitment tool, and can find a much larger talent pool as a result.
Your latter point demolishes the culture war government push. Hybrid working works. Hybrid working is good. Companies spend less on expensive offices. Less on utilities. Less on expenses. And have a workforce who deliver 95% of office efficiency for 80% of the cost.
So if you want to recruit and want the best candidates, hybrid has quickly become the default option for a lot of industries. There are still a lot of jobs that have to be done on site and that won't change. But if the company can both cuts its costs and have a broader happier labour pool to choose from...
Aided and abetted by the right wing press. The DM also gleefully announces that 50 migrants could be shipped off to Rwanda in two weeks , I’m sure no 10 could do better than that , why not just put them against a wall and shoot them , save on the airfares which could go to the cost of living crisis !
There is something deeply disturbing about the trajectory of the UK under the Tories . It’s all about hate and negativity , who can be next to be set upon to appease the angry mob , of course we still have those terrible leftie lawyers trying to outwit the queen of Mean Patel , next up the Human Rights Act which will get a new name but hollowed out.
I rewatched The Uncivil War last night. It highlights the brilliant ruthlessness of the Vote Leave campaign. Take Back Control was a brilliant slogan - pity the government have failed to deliver on it.
On your trajectory point, the drama plays on this towards the end. There is a fictionalised remain focus group where Craig Oliver gets sick of the responses he is hearing to the remain push lines and storms in to argue with the panelists, many of whom are way beyond facts or reason. That the push lines were also way beyond facts or reason was a big problem...
Yes, we have unleashed pandora from her box. An angry, poorly informed "down with the facts" mood which is being fuelled for electoral reasons by a Tory party dumb enough to think the mob can be controlled.
The whole Brexit debacle is, for me, why Cameron is the worst PM in living memory. Held a vote we didn’t want or need, ran an awful campaign and quit when the going got tough.
Yes. The scene in the programme that made me grin most was Cummings setting out what a completely stupid idea the referendum was. Very clear about what idiocy and forces it would unleash because you can't distil complex issues into binary questions.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
I've been very critical of Cameron over Brexit. I also think it's fundamentally stupid to hold a referendum for something you don't want to happen - insofar as a referendum is a tool we want to have in our democracy it should only be used to endorse policies recommended by the government of the day. That way if HMG wins the vote it can implement its chosen policy, and if it loses the vote the status quo continues. We avoid the mess of 2016 where there was a vote for a policy, and no government to implement it.
That said, I think you're being a bit unfair. Cameron may have come to the conclusion that a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU was inevitable. He may have looked at his party and thought it very likely that its next leader would be in favour of leaving the EU, and would fight, and possibly win, a general election campaign on that policy, leading to a referendum where the recommendation of HMG was to vote for departure.
If you accept that assessment, then the choice is not between holding a referendum, or not holding a referendum, but between holding a referendum at a time of your choosing or not. I can then understand Cameron's choice as not entirely unreasonable, even if I think it wrongheaded. And, of course, he threw away the advantage of choosing the timing of the vote by rushing his renegotiation.
I love a bit of righteous umph in a politician. Sometimes it really is a question of right and wrong. Some get nervy calling out the other side as wrong, but when its clear it has to be done.
What the DUP have done is say "we don't like the result so we're going to shut the whole thing down"
PS. There's something strangely unnerving about having a PM who lies freely.It creates a disconnect between citizen and government. It takes away any pride or patriotism you might feel. This is what life must have felt like under a Mugabe or Saddam.
Crikey, you really spout some shite. Johnson is not a great PM but to compare that to life under Saddam or Mugabe. Barking.
The politics aren't the same. But the method of government? Its not barking. We have a government who not only openly lies to its own people, but has weaponised the lies to wage culture war against the truth.
The enduring image of the end of the Saddam regime was "Comical Ali" standing there lying to the media who could see that what he was saying was total guff. How is that any different from Boris Johnson lying to the media, or sending out ministers to lie through their faces defending a position which is toast by mid-morning?
I have no problem disagreeing with political positions honestly held. But lying liars? That's a lot worse. Saying something they know isn't true. Hoping to profit from the damage done to society by the lie. Whilst breaking down the framework that holds our society together.
Saddam's methods of government included mass killings of his people using chemical weapons, or forcing parents to stand around and clap as their children were machine gunned into mass graves.
Johnson isn't a nice person and he's a terrible PM but he's not *that* bad.
I said that in my first sentence. But we're about to start deporting the forrin to Africa having declared war on judges and the rule of law. Lying, breaking the law, human rights violations. Feels a bit dictatey to me even if we haven't started to just sink the boats. yet.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
In the mad multiverse of Tory politics, Cameron took the route with the worst outcome for him, his party and the nation.
Effectively becoming UKIP and been lead by a homegrown populist and chucking out dozens of conservative Conservative MPs isn’t really a Tory win over UKIP and Farage.
Nice meal out two yesterday evening in a pretty bog-standard place which cost £80 inc tip.
Made me think of Anabob's lament a couple of days ago that people won't spend more than £40 a head for a meal. My first reaction was £40 sounds a lot to me! but that seems to be the going rate for a pub meal when you factor everything in. My burger main course last night was £20.
Was the £80 spent last night £80 better than staying in and watching telly? That's the question.
Header: if the Tories won most votes and most seats yet Starmer became PM under some form of coalition which excludes the Tories, what would be the reaction to this? Could this hold for a full term?
Secondly, a narrative has developed which assumes that the LibDems would go into coalition with Labour - has this assumption got ahead of itself?
Torygraph running horror stories about Impending Property Crash every hour on the hour, is the business editor feeling overextended on buy to lets and wanting Sunak to Do Something for Hard Working Homeowners?
If property falls by about 50% it might be back to decent wage/price ratios.
Shame for anyone who ends up in negative equity, but investments can go down as well as up.
Not a shame for any property speculators, karma's only a bitch if you are.
What a lovely bloke you are, does it not occur to you that people who have recently bought a house on a mortgage to live in are going to be the demographic most liable to negative equity?
I hate to wind you up, but I bought 6 acres of fields last week (memo to self: never drink before bidding at auction, not even half a pint to steady the nerves) to extend my actual BY and protect it from housebuilders. And I am sitting on a cash molehill with a view to some second home shopping in the aftermath of Ther Crash.
Why would that wind me up? I've said for all along if you don't want land near you to be developed you should buy it.
It's the freeloading parasites who want to be able to block other people's land being developed in order to protect their own view/house price that I have an objection to.
What you choose to do with your own personal property is nothing to do with me. Farm it, let it go wild, I couldn't care less, it's yours. Just don't object if other people develop their own land.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
Typical of Johnson that he can't imagine that other people aren't as lazy and dysfunctional as he is. I WFH two days a week and am no less efficient on those days, indeed for tasks that require focus I would say I am more productive when I don't have all the noise of a trading floor. Plus I avoid the commute, can do household tasks or talk to my kids in moments of downtime, and enjoy the birds singing outside my garden office. The other three days are more than enough for face time with colleagues.
There’s serious issues with WFH specifically in the civil service, many of whom see it as collecting a salary without working, and many others have taken the opportunity to move away from a commutable distance. With no profit motive, many staff are coasting and there is a noticable impact on customer-facing government services.
There’s also a lot of macroeconomic reasons that WFH is bad for the government, including train service under-utilisation, business rates on office space, and all of the support industries in the City such as F&B outlets paying VAT.
On the flip side, the environmental impact of commuting is huge, and it’s something that is the most hated part of the day for most workers. Many companies are using hybrid working as a recruitment tool, and can find a much larger talent pool as a result.
Your latter point demolishes the culture war government push. Hybrid working works. Hybrid working is good. Companies spend less on expensive offices. Less on utilities. Less on expenses. And have a workforce who deliver 95% of office efficiency for 80% of the cost.
So if you want to recruit and want the best candidates, hybrid has quickly become the default option for a lot of industries. There are still a lot of jobs that have to be done on site and that won't change. But if the company can both cuts its costs and have a broader happier labour pool to choose from...
Regardless of the merits of wfh vs the office, what is interesting is how many supposedly free market Tories think it is right for politicians to tell businesses whether they should employ someone in an office or working from home. What is that about?
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Aided and abetted by the right wing press. The DM also gleefully announces that 50 migrants could be shipped off to Rwanda in two weeks , I’m sure no 10 could do better than that , why not just put them against a wall and shoot them , save on the airfares which could go to the cost of living crisis !
There is something deeply disturbing about the trajectory of the UK under the Tories . It’s all about hate and negativity , who can be next to be set upon to appease the angry mob , of course we still have those terrible leftie lawyers trying to outwit the queen of Mean Patel , next up the Human Rights Act which will get a new name but hollowed out.
I rewatched The Uncivil War last night. It highlights the brilliant ruthlessness of the Vote Leave campaign. Take Back Control was a brilliant slogan - pity the government have failed to deliver on it.
On your trajectory point, the drama plays on this towards the end. There is a fictionalised remain focus group where Craig Oliver gets sick of the responses he is hearing to the remain push lines and storms in to argue with the panelists, many of whom are way beyond facts or reason. That the push lines were also way beyond facts or reason was a big problem...
Yes, we have unleashed pandora from her box. An angry, poorly informed "down with the facts" mood which is being fuelled for electoral reasons by a Tory party dumb enough to think the mob can be controlled.
The whole Brexit debacle is, for me, why Cameron is the worst PM in living memory. Held a vote we didn’t want or need, ran an awful campaign and quit when the going got tough.
Yes. The scene in the programme that made me grin most was Cummings setting out what a completely stupid idea the referendum was. Very clear about what idiocy and forces it would unleash because you can't distil complex issues into binary questions.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
I really do believe that the country needed a say on Europe. All other European nations had referenda on things like Lisbon etc, but in the U.K. we never had a say. Brown going in to sign away from the cameras. There were lots of things done wrong around the referendum. A two stage process defined at the start to see what the public wanted if out won. Or a mandated what out meant at the start. The remain camp had no faith in the project and could only come up with scare stories of emergency budgets and so on. Of course leave painted fabulous visions of the future that were not based in the real world. It’s like leaving a marriage - the new women you will date will all be so much better than the wife. Unicorns. But the public had been ignored for too long. They did want a say. Garage didn’t do it all on his own.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Perhaps it was winnable, though I was doubting that even as we knocked on doors in 2015's long long campaign and heard so many talking about the issue. So it wasn't a risk worth taking. Not because of the actual referendum result, because of what it unleashed.
Nice meal out two yesterday evening in a pretty bog-standard place which cost £80 inc tip.
Made me think of Anabob's lament a couple of days ago that people won't spend more than £40 a head for a meal. My first reaction was £40 sounds a lot to me! but that seems to be the going rate for a pub meal when you factor everything in. My burger main course last night was £20.
Was the £80 spent last night £80 better than staying in and watching telly? That's the question.
This must be in an expensive area.
Not really - the East Midlands. Depends how many courses and drinks of course. And we tend to tip well.
Emily Thornberry @EmilyThornberry Planning my dish-from-each-country-in-the-final Eurovision meal for Saturday night. It does rather colour my views about who I'd rather get through the 2nd semi final. 🤷🏼♀️
I loathe the whole thing of course but can't resist a little punt.
The Norway effort looks utter mind-numbing shite so I've backed that for Top Ten @ 1.8 and Top Three @ 11.
Italy (same ghastly bunch as last year) to beat UK/Spain/France and Germany ('Big Five') @ 3.05
Ukraine are too short surely? Lay Top Three @ 1.12
I love Eurovision in all its camp absurd glory. It isn't to be taken too seriously. Just enjoy the spectacle. Themed Eurovision parties with foods from all the entrants are part of the fun, good on Thornberry for making the effort.
I try to tune in when the voting starts. The voting appeals to me greatly.
Ditto, particularly this year, supporting Ukraine. Can't stand the songs, but great if you do.
I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.
When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!
If they'd listened to me five years ago this would have all gone much smoother. The sooner they do, the better, it is the end game and one day I'll be able to say I told you so.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Oh FFS not this again. Lisbon was not down to Brown. First, the decision was already made by Blair. More fundamentally, Lisbon had already been watered down following its rejection by the French and Dutch.
The problem with the Brexit referendum was that Cameron had drawn the wrong lesson from Sindy, which he'd almost lost with a negative campaign until Brown and Ruth Davidson stepped up with a positive case for the union. Cameron's Remain campaign was, likewise, negative (more-or-less Europe is terrible but outside is even worse). It duly failed.
Mr. Jonathan, I read avery good, long article on working from home in the USA (think it was last year, maybe Forbes but I couldn't swear to it).
With some businesses, the managers disliked the decline in being seen to be important and were concerned at the hierarchy being observed. It was more ego than efficiency or effectiveness. A more flexible/engaged approach with increased working from home generally achieved better outcomes, but did require the support of those at the top.
Working from home is not always better, or even possible, but the bizarre and outdated blanket dislike of it by some people does suggest at best a limited imagination, and, at worst, plain stupidity.
My US management insisted that at least one member of the team is physically in the office every day.
In unrelated news my manager just moved house to a different state, and will therefore not be commuting into the office on a regular basis...
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
Favours for favours, providing pointless deciding lines help sell the comics that are occasionally useful in running arms length political campaigns against your opponents.
Mr. Jonathan, aye. Ironic, given Cameron's pro-EU.
But the political class generally handled EU matters appallingly poorly, using it as a scapegoat for things they disliked, failing to make a persuasive case for it, and seeming only to be comfortable either deriding those who disliked it (having courted them in opposition) or agreeing how lovely it was.
Take the infamous bus slogan. Why not take the opportunity to list the economic advantages of EU membership (which was, or should have been, the primary selling point)? But no. Instead they argued whether it was a mega-enormous or merely super-enormous sum we spent on membership fees (a legitimate criticism, of course, but one you'd not expect the pro-EU side to keep on banging on about).
Of course, the fees would've been much lower had the short-termist Blair not thrown half the rebate away for nothing...
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
I'd be quite happy as a compromise for him to live in Downing Street and commute to work in say, the BMW dealers in Stoke.
Not that I would buy a used car off him.
Johnson's argument is both pathetic and disingenuous. The more I work from home the more the struggling high street in my home town benefits because I shop locally and order lunch from local outlets. Johnson is only interested in reviving the kind of businesses that have influential CEOs like Pret.
Also I don't understand the argument that WFH is bad because some sectors or professions can't take advantage of it. I have to be on call during weekends and bank holidays but I don't resent people who don't have to take work calls during leisure time.
I'm working hybrid at the moment and quite frankly 90% of the time I'm in the office is a fucking waste of money. I go to my desk and do the exact same work I would have done at home except I'm £40 poorer and sodding Thameslink is £40 richer.
Yes but that £40 matters if we want Thameslink to be viable. If no-one uses public transport then subsidies will need to be increased, even as the level of service drops.
Or cut services if the demand isn't there. Always an option.
PS. There's something strangely unnerving about having a PM who lies freely.It creates a disconnect between citizen and government. It takes away any pride or patriotism you might feel. This is what life must have felt like under a Mugabe or Saddam.
Crikey, you really spout some shite. Johnson is not a great PM but to compare that to life under Saddam or Mugabe. Barking.
The politics aren't the same. But the method of government? Its not barking. We have a government who not only openly lies to its own people, but has weaponised the lies to wage culture war against the truth.
The enduring image of the end of the Saddam regime was "Comical Ali" standing there lying to the media who could see that what he was saying was total guff. How is that any different from Boris Johnson lying to the media, or sending out ministers to lie through their faces defending a position which is toast by mid-morning?
I have no problem disagreeing with political positions honestly held. But lying liars? That's a lot worse. Saying something they know isn't true. Hoping to profit from the damage done to society by the lie. Whilst breaking down the framework that holds our society together.
Saddam's methods of government included mass killings of his people using chemical weapons, or forcing parents to stand around and clap as their children were machine gunned into mass graves.
Johnson isn't a nice person and he's a terrible PM but he's not *that* bad.
I said that in my first sentence. But we're about to start deporting the forrin to Africa having declared war on judges and the rule of law. Lying, breaking the law, human rights violations. Feels a bit dictatey to me even if we haven't started to just sink the boats. yet.
This is exactly my fear - and don't forget the campaigns of resentment against law and government to scare citizens into handing over power from lawmakers to the PM personally - like the protocol and the rest of the long war with EUrasia. I blame Cummings who seems to lack a humanist bone in his body.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I wonder how that will go down with the shinners supporters. Seems a risky thing to do.
Compared with trying to close down NI? I think the contrast is clear. The Unionists are digging a bigger hole trying to shore up their position, and SF are coming over as all the more reasonable in comparison.
Both parties are also looking to Ireland and the rUK. It's looking worse and worse for the Tories to be seen to pander to such seeming toys-from-pram stuff. And SF have elections to win, in due course, in Ireland too.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Perhaps it was winnable, though I was doubting that even as we knocked on doors in 2015's long long campaign and heard so many talking about the issue. So it wasn't a risk worth taking. Not because of the actual referendum result, because of what it unleashed.
You doubted it was winnable in 2015? I'm confused because you did win it in 2016.
Emily Thornberry @EmilyThornberry Planning my dish-from-each-country-in-the-final Eurovision meal for Saturday night. It does rather colour my views about who I'd rather get through the 2nd semi final. 🤷🏼♀️
I loathe the whole thing of course but can't resist a little punt.
The Norway effort looks utter mind-numbing shite so I've backed that for Top Ten @ 1.8 and Top Three @ 11.
Italy (same ghastly bunch as last year) to beat UK/Spain/France and Germany ('Big Five') @ 3.05
Ukraine are too short surely? Lay Top Three @ 1.12
I love Eurovision in all its camp absurd glory. It isn't to be taken too seriously. Just enjoy the spectacle. Themed Eurovision parties with foods from all the entrants are part of the fun, good on Thornberry for making the effort.
Any bets?
I think the value is in the top 5 and 10 market, longer odds. There are usually some surprises.
I am a big fan of Moldova. They really get the brief, and enter something crazy, yet not too arch or knowing. They can't afford to win, but are the life of the party.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Mr. JohnL, a new font and name does not suffice, and if Brown believed it did he might have turned up on time rather than skulking in late to try and avoid attention.
Mr. xP, US business practices can sometimes be weird. Lack of seating for those on tills, or very few holidays spring to mind.
Having someone in the office just to have someone in the office feels like a bit of a comfort blanket.
Mr. Jonathan, aye. Ironic, given Cameron's pro-EU.
But the political class generally handled EU matters appallingly poorly, using it as a scapegoat for things they disliked, failing to make a persuasive case for it, and seeming only to be comfortable either deriding those who disliked it (having courted them in opposition) or agreeing how lovely it was.
Take the infamous bus slogan. Why not take the opportunity to list the economic advantages of EU membership (which was, or should have been, the primary selling point)? But no. Instead they argued whether it was a mega-enormous or merely super-enormous sum we spent on membership fees (a legitimate criticism, of course, but one you'd not expect the pro-EU side to keep on banging on about).
Of course, the fees would've been much lower had the short-termist Blair not thrown half the rebate away for nothing...
Wonder where we would be today if we hadn’t contributed to Eastern Europe joining the EU. We paid fees, but the Baltic states, Poland etc all looked West as a result.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Oh FFS not this again. Lisbon was not down to Brown. First, the decision was already made by Blair. More fundamentally, Lisbon had already been watered down following its rejection by the French and Dutch.
The problem with the Brexit referendum was that Cameron had drawn the wrong lesson from Sindy, which he'd almost lost with a negative campaign until Brown and Ruth Davidson stepped up with a positive case for the union. Cameron's Remain campaign was, likewise, negative (more-or-less Europe is terrible but outside is even worse). It duly failed.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
Lots of people have jobs that can't be done from home - they have no choice but to travel in to the warehouse, or building site. These people may understandably be somewhat envious of those who can work from home. They may also share in the disdain for office workers as "pen-pushers" who don't do real work. It's really easy to see how the government rhetoric is seeking to increase these divides by encouraging people who can't work from home to think that those who do are enjoying doss days.
All the government has is dividing people through bitterness, envy and suspicion.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
I'd be quite happy as a compromise for him to live in Downing Street and commute to work in say, the BMW dealers in Stoke.
Not that I would buy a used car off him.
Johnson's argument is both pathetic and disingenuous. The more I work from home the more the struggling high street in my home town benefits because I shop locally and order lunch from local outlets. Johnson is only interested in reviving the kind of businesses that have influential CEOs like Pret.
Also I don't understand the argument that WFH is bad because some sectors or professions can't take advantage of it. I have to be on call during weekends and bank holidays but I don't resent people who don't have to take work calls during leisure time.
I'm working hybrid at the moment and quite frankly 90% of the time I'm in the office is a fucking waste of money. I go to my desk and do the exact same work I would have done at home except I'm £40 poorer and sodding Thameslink is £40 richer.
Yes but that £40 matters if we want Thameslink to be viable. If no-one uses public transport then subsidies will need to be increased, even as the level of service drops.
Or cut services if the demand isn't there. Always an option.
As I said, "if we want Thameslink (or public transport in general) to be viable". In general, reduced services will still require subsidy, and often greater subsidy. Axing services altogether is possible but might lead to other problems.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Perhaps it was winnable, though I was doubting that even as we knocked on doors in 2015's long long campaign and heard so many talking about the issue. So it wasn't a risk worth taking. Not because of the actual referendum result, because of what it unleashed.
You doubted it was winnable in 2015? I'm confused because you did win it in 2016.
Mr. Password, Cameron was unlucky as the migrant crisis was ongoing and many thought it would get even worse, hence his rushed timetable.
That turned out not to be the case, of course, but it was an understandable error.
Getting Obama to make his stupid 'back of the queue' comment and referring to 'Little England' was entirely self-inflicted, of course...
The tell in the Obama quote, is that he would have naturally said “back of the line” rather than “back of the queue”.
That suggests the quote was written by someone British or talking to the British, whether it be the Cameron team or his own advisors.
OTOH it could have come from an American familiar with the British and taking care to use British idiom. Or, for instance, revised by the US Ambassador or his aides?
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Exciting #platjub news. McLaren are bringing out a special "Elizabeth II" edition Artura.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
Exciting #platjub news. McLaren are bringing out a special "Elizabeth II" edition Artura.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Outrageous. As a gift to her nation to mark her Jubilee, HM will provide each of her subjects with a McLaren.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
Don't be ridiculous. Covid can't be allowed to create a massive shift in the way people work which unlocks flexible working opportunities which means people can do jobs from home around their kids that otherwise would be closed off to them, thus starting the process of removing areas of massive inequality and unemployment.
What about Starbucks profits? What are you, a communist or something?
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would not be very protracte if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
Sure, just run a referendum and then spend the next few years sorting out the details. There is precedent you know!
The point being, Brexit could end with a whimper, quietly, quickly and quite unexpectedly.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
There is a firm element in France that believes that De Gaulle was right to say "Non" to UK accession.
There's a certain amusing contradiction in that element of French thought seems to be glad that we're gone, but pissed off about Brexit because it was our choice and we rejected them rather than the other way around.
As such, people like Macron want Brexit to be seen to fail but not to be reversed.
England will almost certainly never be back in the EU in my lifetime, not only would we not go for all that again, but the French will never let us back even if we did change our minds.
Exciting #platjub news. McLaren are bringing out a special "Elizabeth II" edition Artura.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Outrageous. As a gift to her nation to mark her Jubilee, HM will provide each of her subjects with a McLaren.
I was just hoping for some of the trifle. I have commissioned one from Mrs Foxy.
Exciting #platjub news. McLaren are bringing out a special "Elizabeth II" edition Artura.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Outrageous. As a gift to her nation to mark her Jubilee, HM will provide each of her subjects with a McLaren.
I was just hoping for some of the trifle. I have commissioned one from Mrs Foxy.
I wonder how that will go down with the shinners supporters. Seems a risky thing to do.
Not really. Sinn Fein has moved on. The big prize for Sinn Fein is Dublin. In Northern Ireland, it will not risk a border poll until it thinks it can win, which is a fair way off. Meanwhile, thanks in part to the Good Friday Agreement, life goes on and at the day-to-day level, Ireland is more-or-less like one country, or at least like the EU, with Schrodinger's Border, and doubtless this will now increase under Sinn Fein, helped immeasurably by Boris having ("over his dead body") placed a border down the Irish Sea so that NI/Ireland trade is easier than NI/GB.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
If nothing else we have to consider the position of the counterparty - in this case the EU. We have demonstrated we can't negotiate because of ignorance and bad faith, and having negotiated a treaty have proceeded to spend the following years shouting about how unfair it is and threatening to tear chunks of it up.
It will take a long time for any EU negotiator to consider the UK to be a viable partner worth negotiating with. And not just the EU - the reason why other countries don't want to negotiate anything with us (unless they think they can exploit our stupidity) is because we can't be trusted.
You can't break international law - even in a specific and limited manner - and expect there are no consequences. We cannot just do what we want unchallenged without comeback. No matter how many times BR says we can.
I vote Lib Dem precisely because they are NOT Labour, and because they disagree with them on all sorts of things from economic policy to civil liberties. I am happy for them to be in government with either major party but a pre-election pact of this sort causes me to hesitate as it makes the one party seem an appendage of the other.
Incidentally, I also liked most of what they did in the Coalition and thought they were a pivotal positive influence on it - I am a little frustrated that the party's strategy is seemingly to disown completely their only period in government for almost a century.
Can the Lib Dems control themselves in local constituencies, or will they be tempted to send out more 'Mike Smithson letters' next time to say that a vote for the Lib Dems will keep Labour out of this constituency, and the Conservatives out of that constituency?
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
Don't be ridiculous. Covid can't be allowed to create a massive shift in the way people work which unlocks flexible working opportunities which means people can do jobs from home around their kids that otherwise would be closed off to them, thus starting the process of removing areas of massive inequality and unemployment.
What about Starbucks profits? What are you, a communist or something?
I think this is one that Labour should run with. One of the groups of voters up for play are fairly well off 50-65s still working, who traditionally have started to switch Tory as they get older and richer. I'd imagine that group are firmly on the side of wfh (until they retire, of course).
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
I'd be quite happy as a compromise for him to live in Downing Street and commute to work in say, the BMW dealers in Stoke.
Not that I would buy a used car off him.
Johnson's argument is both pathetic and disingenuous. The more I work from home the more the struggling high street in my home town benefits because I shop locally and order lunch from local outlets. Johnson is only interested in reviving the kind of businesses that have influential CEOs like Pret.
Also I don't understand the argument that WFH is bad because some sectors or professions can't take advantage of it. I have to be on call during weekends and bank holidays but I don't resent people who don't have to take work calls during leisure time.
I'm working hybrid at the moment and quite frankly 90% of the time I'm in the office is a fucking waste of money. I go to my desk and do the exact same work I would have done at home except I'm £40 poorer and sodding Thameslink is £40 richer.
Yes but that £40 matters if we want Thameslink to be viable. If no-one uses public transport then subsidies will need to be increased, even as the level of service drops.
Or cut services if the demand isn't there. Always an option.
As I said, "if we want Thameslink (or public transport in general) to be viable". In general, reduced services will still require subsidy, and often greater subsidy. Axing services altogether is possible but might lead to other problems.
There's a certain irony that many people claim public transport is great because it is more efficient, but it requires subsidy or it can't operate.
There's no subsidy for private transportation, indeed the majority of the cost of it is taxation, so we ought to be considering just why it is that public transportation is so ridiculously inefficient it not only doesn't carry the same levels of taxation, but it requires subsidies on top.
I wonder how that will go down with the shinners supporters. Seems a risky thing to do.
Not really. Sinn Fein has moved on. The big prize for Sinn Fein is Dublin. In Northern Ireland, it will not risk a border poll until it thinks it can win, which is a fair way off. Meanwhile, thanks in part to the Good Friday Agreement, life goes on and at the day-to-day level, Ireland is more-or-less like one country, or at least like the EU, with Schrodinger's Border, and doubtless this will now increase under Sinn Fein, helped immeasurably by Boris having ("over his dead body") placed a border down the Irish Sea so that NI/Ireland trade is easier than NI/GB.
It’s worth making that clearer NI/Ireland trade is frictionless and paperworkless as it has been since the 1990s.
NI/GB trade is now paperwork city in both directions because that is where Boris placed the border and borders == paperwork.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
Lots of people have jobs that can't be done from home - they have no choice but to travel in to the warehouse, or building site. These people may understandably be somewhat envious of those who can work from home. They may also share in the disdain for office workers as "pen-pushers" who don't do real work. It's really easy to see how the government rhetoric is seeking to increase these divides by encouraging people who can't work from home to think that those who do are enjoying doss days.
All the government has is dividing people through bitterness, envy and suspicion.
Funnily enough, the polling shows the biggest opposition to WFH is among the over 65s who, of course, generally don’t work at all and form the bedrock of Tory support.
I vote Lib Dem precisely because they are NOT Labour, and because they disagree with them on everthing from economic policy to civil liberties. I am happy for them to be in government with either major party but a pre-election pact of this sort causes me to hesitate as it makes the one party seem an appendage of the other.
Incidentally, I also liked most of what they did in the Coalition and thought they were a pivotal positive influence on it - I am a little frustrated that the party's strategy is seemingly now to disown completely their only period in government for almost a century.
Can the Lib Dems control themselves in local constituecies, or will they be tempted to send out more 'Mike Smithson letters' next time to say that a vote for the Lib Dems will keep Labour out of this constituency, and the Conservatives out of that constituency?
+1
How would you feel if LDs went into coalition with Lab in the context of the Tories having won most votes and seats but insufficient for a majority?
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
If nothing else we have to consider the position of the counterparty - in this case the EU. We have demonstrated we can't negotiate because of ignorance and bad faith, and having negotiated a treaty have proceeded to spend the following years shouting about how unfair it is and threatening to tear chunks of it up.
It will take a long time for any EU negotiator to consider the UK to be a viable partner worth negotiating with. And not just the EU - the reason why other countries don't want to negotiate anything with us (unless they think they can exploit our stupidity) is because we can't be trusted.
You can't break international law - even in a specific and limited manner - and expect there are no consequences. We cannot just do what we want unchallenged without comeback. No matter how many times BR says we can.
I don’t know, people didn’t expect Brexit. It’s end my be equally unexpected. It might come from nowhere. That said, I would expect EEA is far more likely.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
Oh FFS not this again. Lisbon was not down to Brown. First, the decision was already made by Blair. More fundamentally, Lisbon had already been watered down following its rejection by the French and Dutch.
The problem with the Brexit referendum was that Cameron had drawn the wrong lesson from Sindy, which he'd almost lost with a negative campaign until Brown and Ruth Davidson stepped up with a positive case for the union. Cameron's Remain campaign was, likewise, negative (more-or-less Europe is terrible but outside is even worse). It duly failed.
And we never got a say.
Indeed, but if we were to have had a referendum, it would have been under Blair not Brown, and presumably before the French and Dutch rejections.
I wonder how that will go down with the shinners supporters. Seems a risky thing to do.
Not really. Sinn Fein has moved on. The big prize for Sinn Fein is Dublin. In Northern Ireland, it will not risk a border poll until it thinks it can win, which is a fair way off. Meanwhile, thanks in part to the Good Friday Agreement, life goes on and at the day-to-day level, Ireland is more-or-less like one country, or at least like the EU, with Schrodinger's Border, and doubtless this will now increase under Sinn Fein, helped immeasurably by Boris having ("over his dead body") placed a border down the Irish Sea so that NI/Ireland trade is easier than NI/GB.
What the Dumb Unionist Party don't realise is that NO NO NO doesn't work any more. A majority of votes cast against their entire belief system. They can refuse to play until the thing that the majority support is removed and demolishes the economic benefits a foot in both camps has delivered. But what benefit do they expect to gain from it?
Next year we could see Sinn Fein in government in the south. Heading the newly elected because there had to be another election assembly in the north. With another big swing into progressive parties like the alliance and the further neutering of bowler hat and sash equipped loons. At which point there is little they can do to stop the inevitable.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
I understand HMG move to get people back in the office is their concern for the devastation to city and town centre businesses who have lost their clientele
Our council built an all singing all dancing HQ in Colwyn Bay in 2018, which has remained empty since covid and apparently the rents being demanded are so high that even the DWP have just rented a former Iceland store in the shopping precinct, as they could not afford the extortionate rent being asked by the council for their building
I know Boris is being attacked in open season, but he does have a point, especially if buildings like the one in Colwyn Bay remain a white elephant for council tax payers for a generation.
The 'eye-watering' 40 year cost of council's gleaming new headquarters revealed
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I think this says a lot more about Johnson than it says about WFH!
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."
The irony is that Johnson does "Work from Home" and plans to continue to do so.
Why doesn't he live in Camberwell and commute to the office?
I'd be quite happy as a compromise for him to live in Downing Street and commute to work in say, the BMW dealers in Stoke.
Not that I would buy a used car off him.
Johnson's argument is both pathetic and disingenuous. The more I work from home the more the struggling high street in my home town benefits because I shop locally and order lunch from local outlets. Johnson is only interested in reviving the kind of businesses that have influential CEOs like Pret.
Also I don't understand the argument that WFH is bad because some sectors or professions can't take advantage of it. I have to be on call during weekends and bank holidays but I don't resent people who don't have to take work calls during leisure time.
I'm working hybrid at the moment and quite frankly 90% of the time I'm in the office is a fucking waste of money. I go to my desk and do the exact same work I would have done at home except I'm £40 poorer and sodding Thameslink is £40 richer.
Yes but that £40 matters if we want Thameslink to be viable. If no-one uses public transport then subsidies will need to be increased, even as the level of service drops.
Or cut services if the demand isn't there. Always an option.
As I said, "if we want Thameslink (or public transport in general) to be viable". In general, reduced services will still require subsidy, and often greater subsidy. Axing services altogether is possible but might lead to other problems.
There's a certain irony that many people claim public transport is great because it is more efficient, but it requires subsidy or it can't operate.
There's no subsidy for private transportation, indeed the majority of the cost of it is taxation, so we ought to be considering just why it is that public transportation is so ridiculously inefficient it not only doesn't carry the same levels of taxation, but it requires subsidies on top.
Public rail transport is the only viable city commuting option. Suburban folk generally don’t like their homes being demolished for motorways and massive car parks. They tried that in the 60s and 70s. Private trains don’t work.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
Lots of people have jobs that can't be done from home - they have no choice but to travel in to the warehouse, or building site. These people may understandably be somewhat envious of those who can work from home. They may also share in the disdain for office workers as "pen-pushers" who don't do real work. It's really easy to see how the government rhetoric is seeking to increase these divides by encouraging people who can't work from home to think that those who do are enjoying doss days.
All the government has is dividing people through bitterness, envy and suspicion.
Funnily enough, the polling shows the biggest opposition to WFH is among the over 65s who, of course, generally don’t work at all and form the bedrock of Tory support.
Perhaps they are used to apologies for services being worse (or "reduced") owing to WFH. Of course, in some cases the actual problem is a massive backlog owing to Covid, such as in health, passports and driving licences, but the powers that be blame WFH.
I vote Lib Dem precisely because they are NOT Labour, and because they disagree with them on everthing from economic policy to civil liberties. I am happy for them to be in government with either major party but a pre-election pact of this sort causes me to hesitate as it makes the one party seem an appendage of the other.
Incidentally, I also liked most of what they did in the Coalition and thought they were a pivotal positive influence on it - I am a little frustrated that the party's strategy is seemingly now to disown completely their only period in government for almost a century.
Can the Lib Dems control themselves in local constituecies, or will they be tempted to send out more 'Mike Smithson letters' next time to say that a vote for the Lib Dems will keep Labour out of this constituency, and the Conservatives out of that constituency?
+1
How would you feel if LDs went into coalition with Lab in the context of the Tories having won most votes and seats but insufficient for a majority?
Aided and abetted by the right wing press. The DM also gleefully announces that 50 migrants could be shipped off to Rwanda in two weeks , I’m sure no 10 could do better than that , why not just put them against a wall and shoot them , save on the airfares which could go to the cost of living crisis !
There is something deeply disturbing about the trajectory of the UK under the Tories . It’s all about hate and negativity , who can be next to be set upon to appease the angry mob , of course we still have those terrible leftie lawyers trying to outwit the queen of Mean Patel , next up the Human Rights Act which will get a new name but hollowed out.
I rewatched The Uncivil War last night. It highlights the brilliant ruthlessness of the Vote Leave campaign. Take Back Control was a brilliant slogan - pity the government have failed to deliver on it.
On your trajectory point, the drama plays on this towards the end. There is a fictionalised remain focus group where Craig Oliver gets sick of the responses he is hearing to the remain push lines and storms in to argue with the panelists, many of whom are way beyond facts or reason. That the push lines were also way beyond facts or reason was a big problem...
Yes, we have unleashed pandora from her box. An angry, poorly informed "down with the facts" mood which is being fuelled for electoral reasons by a Tory party dumb enough to think the mob can be controlled.
The whole Brexit debacle is, for me, why Cameron is the worst PM in living memory. Held a vote we didn’t want or need, ran an awful campaign and quit when the going got tough.
Yes. The scene in the programme that made me grin most was Cummings setting out what a completely stupid idea the referendum was. Very clear about what idiocy and forces it would unleash because you can't distil complex issues into binary questions.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
I really do believe that the country needed a say on Europe. All other European nations had referenda on things like Lisbon etc, but in the U.K. we never had a say. Brown going in to sign away from the cameras. There were lots of things done wrong around the referendum. A two stage process defined at the start to see what the public wanted if out won. Or a mandated what out meant at the start. The remain camp had no faith in the project and could only come up with scare stories of emergency budgets and so on. Of course leave painted fabulous visions of the future that were not based in the real world. It’s like leaving a marriage - the new women you will date will all be so much better than the wife. Unicorns. But the public had been ignored for too long. They did want a say. Garage didn’t do it all on his own.
When the history books are written and the pantheon of Brexit villains determined, Garage (as you spell checker puts it) isn't even Premier League.
His paymaster (whom I won't mention because he sues) and the leader of the country from where much of the financial backing was "allegedly" obtained are there. So too is Cameron, who having spent six months telling us the EU were a drain on our resources then expected us to vote for it. Then there was Corbyn, the accidental Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't like international trading blocs, unless they are called the USSR. And in gold medal position we have BigDog, a shameless scoundrel who decided the EUReferendum was an opportunity to stab his friend Cameron in the back and use the close defeat of Leave (oops, but never mind) as a vehicle to Downing Street.
Exciting #platjub news. McLaren are bringing out a special "Elizabeth II" edition Artura.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Outrageous. As a gift to her nation to mark her Jubilee, HM will provide each of her subjects with a McLaren.
I was just hoping for some of the trifle. I have commissioned one from Mrs Foxy.
I hope she doesn't sue for divorce over a mere trifle.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would not be very protracte if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
Sure, just run a referendum and then spend the next few years sorting out the details. There is precedent you know!
The point being, Brexit could end with a whimper, quietly, quickly and quite unexpectedly.
It would require a government to be elected on a manifesto promise of a referendum, it would then take up to a year to proceed with the legislation, wording, campaigning and the vote
Furthermore, it is unlikely the country would vote to rejoin the EU without an understanding of the terms of that new treaty, unlike the error in the 2016 referendum.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
There is a firm element in France that believes that De Gaulle was right to say "Non" to UK accession.
There's a certain amusing contradiction in that element of French thought seems to be glad that we're gone, but pissed off about Brexit because it was our choice and we rejected them rather than the other way around.
As such, people like Macron want Brexit to be seen to fail but not to be reversed.
England will almost certainly never be back in the EU in my lifetime, not only would we not go for all that again, but the French will never let us back even if we did change our minds.
Do you have even a scrap of evidence for a single line you have just written? Was it made up on the spot or did you dream it or maybe copy it from a Dellingpole Junior website? Yes I'm sure the french are glad to see the back of us. With this incontinent government who wouldn't be?
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
If nothing else we have to consider the position of the counterparty - in this case the EU. We have demonstrated we can't negotiate because of ignorance and bad faith, and having negotiated a treaty have proceeded to spend the following years shouting about how unfair it is and threatening to tear chunks of it up.
It will take a long time for any EU negotiator to consider the UK to be a viable partner worth negotiating with. And not just the EU - the reason why other countries don't want to negotiate anything with us (unless they think they can exploit our stupidity) is because we can't be trusted.
You can't break international law - even in a specific and limited manner - and expect there are no consequences. We cannot just do what we want unchallenged without comeback. No matter how many times BR says we can.
Yes, but most of that is to do with the current government. Once they are gone then there is every reason to expect the next government to return to the Rule of Law, and honesty rather than duplicity in treaty making.
I vote Lib Dem precisely because they are NOT Labour, and because they disagree with them on all sorts of things from economic policy to civil liberties. I am happy for them to be in government with either major party but a pre-election pact of this sort causes me to hesitate as it makes the one party seem an appendage of the other.
Incidentally, I also liked most of what they did in the Coalition and thought they were a pivotal positive influence on it - I am a little frustrated that the party's strategy is seemingly to disown completely their only period in government for almost a century.
Can the Lib Dems control themselves in local constituencies, or will they be tempted to send out more 'Mike Smithson letters' next time to say that a vote for the Lib Dems will keep Labour out of this constituency, and the Conservatives out of that constituency?
OGH is an excellent political analyst and punter, but the way the Lib Dems abused the way he let them use his name last time was disgraceful.
That letter was sent to residents in Warrington South saying to vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out as the Conservatives couldn't win here, despite it being a key Labour/Tory swing seat with a tiny minority that had swung from Tory to Labour in 2017.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Mike Smithson would have personally chosen this as a constituency where Conservatives should vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out, based on impartial polling analysis. The Lib Dems shouldn't abuse his generosity in letting them use his name.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
I understand HMG move to get people back in the office is their concern for the devastation to city and town centre businesses who have lost their clientele
Our council built an all singing all dancing HQ in Colwyn Bay in 2018, which has remained empty since covid and apparently the rents being demanded are so high that even the DWP have just rented a former Iceland store in the shopping precinct, as they could not afford the extortionate rent being asked by the council for their building
I know Boris is being attacked in open season, but he does have a point, especially if buildings like the one in Colwyn Bay remain a white elephant for council tax payers for a generation.
The 'eye-watering' 40 year cost of council's gleaming new headquarters revealed
Not everyone is going to work from home full time, such offices will still be useful and needed. Some city centre shops, bars, coffee shops and restaurants will close. They always have done, but will be replaced by village shops and pubs instead of new city centre shops and hospitality. The lower demand office space can get converted to residential.
Here’s a thought, could a future government simply run another quick in/out EU referendum following an event such as a financial crisis.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
With the greatest respect it is not anything like as easy as that, and while future governments may well move closer to the EU, which is not only desirable but necessary, re-joining is fraught with problems and would be very protracted if indeed the EU is not riven with their own issues with Germany and France v the rest
If nothing else we have to consider the position of the counterparty - in this case the EU. We have demonstrated we can't negotiate because of ignorance and bad faith, and having negotiated a treaty have proceeded to spend the following years shouting about how unfair it is and threatening to tear chunks of it up.
It will take a long time for any EU negotiator to consider the UK to be a viable partner worth negotiating with. And not just the EU - the reason why other countries don't want to negotiate anything with us (unless they think they can exploit our stupidity) is because we can't be trusted.
You can't break international law - even in a specific and limited manner - and expect there are no consequences. We cannot just do what we want unchallenged without comeback. No matter how many times BR says we can.
Bozo, Moggster and the Mail trying their best to piss off as many middle class professionals as possible.
On demanding an end to WFH, you mean? Perhaps the government could compromise with a law that no company should be allowed to use WFH as an excuse for poor service.
I have no idea why the War on WFH is a priority. It doesn't really feel like one of the most important problems facing the country.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
One reason is city centre businesses that rely on commuters need people to return in order to stay afloat.
Fax machine makers needed us to not have the internet to stay afloat, but we still chose the internet......
True but the government is not trying to "level up" Britain to save fax machine makers.
Surely working from home is great for levelling up and office working bad?
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
I understand HMG move to get people back in the office is their concern for the devastation to city and town centre businesses who have lost their clientele
Our council built an all singing all dancing HQ in Colwyn Bay in 2018, which has remained empty since covid and apparently the rents being demanded are so high that even the DWP have just rented a former Iceland store in the shopping precinct, as they could not afford the extortionate rent being asked by the council for their building
I know Boris is being attacked in open season, but he does have a point, especially if buildings like the one in Colwyn Bay remain a white elephant for council tax payers for a generation.
The 'eye-watering' 40 year cost of council's gleaming new headquarters revealed
Screw the buildings. They can be sold, repurposed, demolished. Think of the advantages. There is a huge pool of labour that isn't used because working is impossible. The example I always use is Merthyr Tydfil where Iain Duncan Smith did his man of the people bit and bemoaned high unemployment when there are loads of jobs in Cardiff. In bars. With no public transport to get home. And no childcare.
But if our economy created more jobs where your mum with kids can work from home flexibly during the day and some evenings then suddenly towns like Merthyr Tydfil are full of people earning money. Which means they start to spend money. Which creates more jobs locally. And the virtuous circle of business speeds up once more.
Comments
Sacking 20% of Civil Servants might also have a notable effect on public services too.
It’s been like this for years. I’m glad to be largely out of it.
There’s also a lot of macroeconomic reasons that WFH is bad for the government, including train service under-utilisation, business rates on office space, and all of the support industries in the City such as F&B outlets paying VAT.
On the flip side, the environmental impact of commuting is huge, and it’s something that is the most hated part of the day for most workers. Many companies are using hybrid working as a recruitment tool, and can find a much larger talent pool as a result.
Of course this government will not do that, because politically they do not want government services to be good.
If you consider it for more than 2 seconds, Cameron's hubris is stark. He needed to see off UKIP to have the chance to be in government. So he concedes and offers an in-out referendum thinking he wouldn't have to do it anyway. Unexpectedly wins a majority, so has to go through with it, promptly loses and has to resign.
Had he faced down the wazzock wing of his own party and told Farage where to get off, the coalition would have continued with Cameron as PM and this country would have been a whole lot better for it.
Thats politics though. Complex issues distilled into binary issues like "should I face down UKIP or wave them off?" Same as Gordon Brown with the 2007 election that never was.
I've had several 'on the phone' medical appointments; no idea, of course where the GP or consultant have been, although I'm pretty sure the GP was working from their surgery. Not as satisfactory from this patient's point of view; can only gauge the GP's opinion from the timbre of their voice, can't see their eyes.
I wish our local surgery would give a FaceTime or Zoom option.
I've also run, and participated in, quite a lot of u3a Zoom meetings, both 'ordinary' and committees and I get the impression that more 'committee work' is done on-line, in the sense of deciding on what to do and who is going to do it.
As far as 'education', in the u3a, or WEA, sense, is considered, 'W'FH has enlarged the possibilities immeasurably.
Instead of fighting the fire he pissed off.
The enduring image of the end of the Saddam regime was "Comical Ali" standing there lying to the media who could see that what he was saying was total guff. How is that any different from Boris Johnson lying to the media, or sending out ministers to lie through their faces defending a position which is toast by mid-morning?
I have no problem disagreeing with political positions honestly held. But lying liars? That's a lot worse. Saying something they know isn't true. Hoping to profit from the damage done to society by the lie. Whilst breaking down the framework that holds our society together.
Made me think of Anabob's lament a couple of days ago that people won't spend more than £40 a head for a meal. My first reaction was £40 sounds a lot to me! but that seems to be the going rate for a pub meal when you factor everything in. My burger main course last night was £20.
Was the £80 spent last night £80 better than staying in and watching telly? That's the question.
Johnson isn't a nice person and he's a terrible PM but he's not *that* bad.
Yet, three weeks ago we were being told he can't be fined for parties because his office is also his home.
He'd lost two MPs to defection and could have lost more. Plus, don't forget how strong UKIP was getting. It failed in FPTP but came second in a huge number of (often Labour) constituencies. Without the promised referendum we could well have seen either a Labour majority or, perhaps, Lab minority with a big UKIP share of seats.
The referendum was 100% winnable. The Remain campaign was, and remains (ahem), astonishingly bad.
Edited extra bit: and don't forget in 2007 Brown should have held a referendum on Lisbon. If he (and the Lib Dems too, of course, who then argued for an in/out referendum...) had done so we would've rejected the treaty and the political class (and EU) might just have taken the chance to try and either persuade sceptics to change their views or to take account of the rejection and accommodate that sentiment going forward.
So if you want to recruit and want the best candidates, hybrid has quickly become the default option for a lot of industries. There are still a lot of jobs that have to be done on site and that won't change. But if the company can both cuts its costs and have a broader happier labour pool to choose from...
That said, I think you're being a bit unfair. Cameron may have come to the conclusion that a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU was inevitable. He may have looked at his party and thought it very likely that its next leader would be in favour of leaving the EU, and would fight, and possibly win, a general election campaign on that policy, leading to a referendum where the recommendation of HMG was to vote for departure.
If you accept that assessment, then the choice is not between holding a referendum, or not holding a referendum, but between holding a referendum at a time of your choosing or not. I can then understand Cameron's choice as not entirely unreasonable, even if I think it wrongheaded. And, of course, he threw away the advantage of choosing the timing of the vote by rushing his renegotiation.
What the DUP have done is say "we don't like the result so we're going to shut the whole thing down"
Effectively becoming UKIP and been lead by a homegrown populist and chucking out dozens of conservative Conservative MPs isn’t really a Tory win over UKIP and Farage.
That turned out not to be the case, of course, but it was an understandable error.
Getting Obama to make his stupid 'back of the queue' comment and referring to 'Little England' was entirely self-inflicted, of course...
Secondly, a narrative has developed which assumes that the LibDems would go into coalition with Labour - has this assumption got ahead of itself?
It's the freeloading parasites who want to be able to block other people's land being developed in order to protect their own view/house price that I have an objection to.
What you choose to do with your own personal property is nothing to do with me. Farm it, let it go wild, I couldn't care less, it's yours. Just don't object if other people develop their own land.
Usually everything this government does is motivated by malice, greed or stupidity but I struggle to see where this fits.
There were lots of things done wrong around the referendum. A two stage process defined at the start to see what the public wanted if out won. Or a mandated what out meant at the start.
The remain camp had no faith in the project and could only come up with scare stories of emergency budgets and so on. Of course leave painted fabulous visions of the future that were not based in the real world. It’s like leaving a marriage - the new women you will date will all be so much better than the wife. Unicorns.
But the public had been ignored for too long. They did want a say. Garage didn’t do it all on his own.
The problem with the Brexit referendum was that Cameron had drawn the wrong lesson from Sindy, which he'd almost lost with a negative campaign until Brown and Ruth Davidson stepped up with a positive case for the union. Cameron's Remain campaign was, likewise, negative (more-or-less Europe is terrible but outside is even worse). It duly failed.
In unrelated news my manager just moved house to a different state, and will therefore not be commuting into the office on a regular basis...
But the political class generally handled EU matters appallingly poorly, using it as a scapegoat for things they disliked, failing to make a persuasive case for it, and seeming only to be comfortable either deriding those who disliked it (having courted them in opposition) or agreeing how lovely it was.
Take the infamous bus slogan. Why not take the opportunity to list the economic advantages of EU membership (which was, or should have been, the primary selling point)? But no. Instead they argued whether it was a mega-enormous or merely super-enormous sum we spent on membership fees (a legitimate criticism, of course, but one you'd not expect the pro-EU side to keep on banging on about).
Of course, the fees would've been much lower had the short-termist Blair not thrown half the rebate away for nothing...
Both parties are also looking to Ireland and the rUK. It's looking worse and worse for the Tories to be seen to pander to such seeming toys-from-pram stuff. And SF have elections to win, in due course, in Ireland too.
I am a big fan of Moldova. They really get the brief, and enter something crazy, yet not too arch or knowing. They can't afford to win, but are the life of the party.
https://twitter.com/bbcthree/status/1524116108822953990?t=jWcD3NEQCHAdwkGSbG0_7g&s=19
Spain as winner W/O Ukraine at 7.8 looks good too.
Mr. xP, US business practices can sometimes be weird. Lack of seating for those on tills, or very few holidays spring to mind.
Having someone in the office just to have someone in the office feels like a bit of a comfort blanket.
That suggests the quote was written by someone British or talking to the British, whether it be the Cameron team or his own advisors.
"The nuclear family has failed
There is nothing conservative about atomisation
BY YORAM HAZONY"
https://unherd.com/2022/05/the-nuclear-family-has-failed/
All the government has is dividing people through bitterness, envy and suspicion.
Or could it just rejoin the EEA at the stroke of a pen. This government doesn’t seek political mandates for trade deals.
Brexit could end quite quickly and quietly.
Nothing can solemnly mark the imminent carking it of a 90something woman like a 200 grand kit car with doors that don't line up and a random number generator instead of an electrical system.
Greed: Some business models (commercial property, sandwich shops, office suits) don't work as well without lots of office workers every day.
Stupidity: If employers and employees agree they prefer hybrid/WFH models, there is nothing the government can do about it.
And I get that extroverts enjoy going to the office. Not everyone is an extrovert, though they tend to be the ones we hear more from.
(See also, government telling us to all buy electric cars).
It is the gravitational pull of "good jobs" being located near each other that causes the regional inequality. If people with good jobs start choosing the best value housing instead of convenient for office housing wealth will flow more evenly across the nation.
I am not sure there is a single more pragmatic policy for levelling up than encouraging working from home.
What about Starbucks profits? What are you, a communist or something?
The point being, Brexit could end with a whimper, quietly, quickly and quite unexpectedly.
There's a certain amusing contradiction in that element of French thought seems to be glad that we're gone, but pissed off about Brexit because it was our choice and we rejected them rather than the other way around.
As such, people like Macron want Brexit to be seen to fail but not to be reversed.
England will almost certainly never be back in the EU in my lifetime, not only would we not go for all that again, but the French will never let us back even if we did change our minds.
It will take a long time for any EU negotiator to consider the UK to be a viable partner worth negotiating with. And not just the EU - the reason why other countries don't want to negotiate anything with us (unless they think they can exploit our stupidity) is because we can't be trusted.
You can't break international law - even in a specific and limited manner - and expect there are no consequences. We cannot just do what we want unchallenged without comeback. No matter how many times BR says we can.
Incidentally, I also liked most of what they did in the Coalition and thought they were a pivotal positive influence on it - I am a little frustrated that the party's strategy is seemingly to disown completely their only period in government for almost a century.
Can the Lib Dems control themselves in local constituencies, or will they be tempted to send out more 'Mike Smithson letters' next time to say that a vote for the Lib Dems will keep Labour out of this constituency, and the Conservatives out of that constituency?
There's no subsidy for private transportation, indeed the majority of the cost of it is taxation, so we ought to be considering just why it is that public transportation is so ridiculously inefficient it not only doesn't carry the same levels of taxation, but it requires subsidies on top.
NI/GB trade is now paperwork city in both directions because that is where Boris placed the border and borders == paperwork.
How would you feel if LDs went into coalition with Lab in the context of the Tories having won most votes and seats but insufficient for a majority?
Next year we could see Sinn Fein in government in the south. Heading the newly elected because there had to be another election assembly in the north. With another big swing into progressive parties like the alliance and the further neutering of bowler hat and sash equipped loons. At which point there is little they can do to stop the inevitable.
Our council built an all singing all dancing HQ in Colwyn Bay in 2018, which has remained empty since covid and apparently the rents being demanded are so high that even the DWP have just rented a former Iceland store in the shopping precinct, as they could not afford the extortionate rent being asked by the council for their building
I know Boris is being attacked in open season, but he does have a point, especially if buildings like the one in Colwyn Bay remain a white elephant for council tax payers for a generation.
The 'eye-watering' 40 year cost of council's gleaming new headquarters revealed
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/eye-watering-40-year-cost-15158487#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
That is how coalitions work.
His paymaster (whom I won't mention because he sues) and the leader of the country from where much of the financial backing was "allegedly" obtained are there. So too is Cameron, who having spent six months telling us the EU were a drain on our resources then expected us to vote for it. Then there was Corbyn, the accidental Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't like international trading blocs, unless they are called the USSR. And in gold medal position we have BigDog, a shameless scoundrel who decided the EUReferendum was an opportunity to stab his friend Cameron in the back and use the close defeat of Leave (oops, but never mind) as a vehicle to Downing Street.
Ah, Brexit is done!
Furthermore, it is unlikely the country would vote to rejoin the EU without an understanding of the terms of that new treaty, unlike the error in the 2016 referendum.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
That letter was sent to residents in Warrington South saying to vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out as the Conservatives couldn't win here, despite it being a key Labour/Tory swing seat with a tiny minority that had swung from Tory to Labour in 2017.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Mike Smithson would have personally chosen this as a constituency where Conservatives should vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out, based on impartial polling analysis. The Lib Dems shouldn't abuse his generosity in letting them use his name.
Some city centre shops, bars, coffee shops and restaurants will close. They always have done, but will be replaced by village shops and pubs instead of new city centre shops and hospitality.
The lower demand office space can get converted to residential.
But if our economy created more jobs where your mum with kids can work from home flexibly during the day and some evenings then suddenly towns like Merthyr Tydfil are full of people earning money. Which means they start to spend money. Which creates more jobs locally. And the virtuous circle of business speeds up once more.