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 sot or did you dream it or copy and paste 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?
I suspect that there would be a prolonged accession process when we Rejoin, to ensure that we are serious, but the economic issues of accession would be minimal. Seeing us return would be a great triumph for the Eu, so wouldn't be vetoed.
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
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.
Have you read All Out War? I think the drama was primarily based on this book, though fictionalised and with Dominic Cummings as protagonist.
The book also goes into the dysfunction of the Remain campaign, being a mixture of hubris and Cameron being reluctant to go for Blue-On-Blue. The real criticism is left for the Labour leader at the time. He was worse than useless. If he had just come out for Brexit, Corbyn would have done less harm to Remain. I can feel myself getting angry at the useless bastard just thinking about it, which is no way to start a Eurovision Saturday. But both book and show were very good.
Corbyn position was reasonable though. Staying in was, on balance, the better option. It is certainly my view and why I plumped remain.
Cameron was awful as PM and the remain campaign was atrocious. But, yeah, it’s all Corbyn fault.
It wasn't all Corbyn's fault. As you say, he didn't call a constitutionally important referendum for narrow party political reasons.
Corbyn's position was mendacious. A life long Eurosceptic, a man who had never changed his view on anything in his life, decided suddenly that he was pro-EU. At best he was ambivalent, at worst he was against the whole thing. Either way, that came through during his lackluster campaigning. And we know from 2017 that, when he wants to, Jeremy Corbyn can campaign.
On top of that, there are multiple allegations that Labour HQ was actively interfering in the Labour Remain campaign to its detriment, removing positive references to the EU and cancelling events. Then Corbyn fucked off on Holiday. Making a left-wing case for continued EU membership should have been one of the easiest things in the world, and Corbyn showed absolutely no leadership during the campaign. Fair enough, you might say, can't make someone enthusiastic in a cause they don't believe in. But then he should have gotten out of the way.
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
No way will the LDs support a Conservative government again, at least not until the Conservatives go back to their pre-2016 policy on Europe.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
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.
Yep, for as long as the Tories are in power now the UK will not be regarded as a trustworthy country.
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.
Suburban people use car parks and motorways in the overwhelming majority of the country, it is city dwellers not suburban residents who need rail so much, but are oddly unwilling to foot the bill for doing so themselves when the rest of the nation is expected to pay for their own transportation.
If city commuting is only viable with a subsidy, then maybe city living just isn't that affordable? Is it any wonder that cities are 'levelled up' more when the cost of commuting within or into them is being heavily subsidised so much? While the rest of the country not only pays for their own transport but is heavily taxed on top 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 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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
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 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.
And depending on what you do and don't include, there might be a big uncovered cost to car based commuting.
The need to level up the provinces is real and important. The productivity of not-London English cities is relatively rubbish. One theory (not proven, but looks convincing to me) is that road based, lowish density development means we don't get the same agglomeration benefits that continental cities do;
So rail based public transport has a cost, sure. So will a transition to a less office based working culture. But the alternative (keep driving to the office everyone) is a bigger, but hidden, cost in forgone economic growth.
And that issue- genteel decline now (after all, we're comfy) over putting the investment in to benefit the future- has been the British disease all my life.
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.
Have you read All Out War? I think the drama was primarily based on this book, though fictionalised and with Dominic Cummings as protagonist.
The book also goes into the dysfunction of the Remain campaign, being a mixture of hubris and Cameron being reluctant to go for Blue-On-Blue. The real criticism is left for the Labour leader at the time. He was worse than useless. If he had just come out for Brexit, Corbyn would have done less harm to Remain. I can feel myself getting angry at the useless bastard just thinking about it, which is no way to start a Eurovision Saturday. But both book and show were very good.
Corbyn position was reasonable though. Staying in was, on balance, the better option. It is certainly my view and why I plumped remain.
Cameron was awful as PM and the remain campaign was atrocious. But, yeah, it’s all Corbyn fault.
It wasn't all Corbyn's fault. As you say, he didn't call a constitutionally important referendum for narrow party political reasons.
Corbyn's position was mendacious. A life long Eurosceptic, a man who had never changed his view on anything in his life, decided suddenly that he was pro-EU. At best he was ambivalent, at worst he was against the whole thing. Either way, that came through during his lackluster campaigning. And we know from 2017 that, when he wants to, Jeremy Corbyn can campaign.
On top of that, there are multiple allegations that Labour HQ was actively interfering in the Labour Remain campaign to its detriment, removing positive references to the EU and cancelling events. Then Corbyn fucked off on Holiday. Making a left-wing case for continued EU membership should have been one of the easiest things in the world, and Corbyn showed absolutely no leadership during the campaign. Fair enough, you might say, can't make someone enthusiastic in a cause they don't believe in. But then he should have gotten out of the way.
Corbyn was (probably) a Leaver posing as a Remainer. And from the blue team, exhibit B is Theresa May. Ironically, Boris was (probably) a Remainer posing as a Leaver.
Funny, isn't it, that Brexit pitted Cameron, who thought he could not lose, against Boris, who thought he could not win.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
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.
Have you read All Out War? I think the drama was primarily based on this book, though fictionalised and with Dominic Cummings as protagonist.
The book also goes into the dysfunction of the Remain campaign, being a mixture of hubris and Cameron being reluctant to go for Blue-On-Blue. The real criticism is left for the Labour leader at the time. He was worse than useless. If he had just come out for Brexit, Corbyn would have done less harm to Remain. I can feel myself getting angry at the useless bastard just thinking about it, which is no way to start a Eurovision Saturday. But both book and show were very good.
Corbyn position was reasonable though. Staying in was, on balance, the better option. It is certainly my view and why I plumped remain.
Cameron was awful as PM and the remain campaign was atrocious. But, yeah, it’s all Corbyn fault.
It wasn't all Corbyn's fault. As you say, he didn't call a constitutionally important referendum for narrow party political reasons.
Corbyn's position was mendacious. A life long Eurosceptic, a man who had never changed his view on anything in his life, decided suddenly that he was pro-EU. At best he was ambivalent, at worst he was against the whole thing. Either way, that came through during his lackluster campaigning. And we know from 2017 that, when he wants to, Jeremy Corbyn can campaign.
On top of that, there are multiple allegations that Labour HQ was actively interfering in the Labour Remain campaign to its detriment, removing positive references to the EU and cancelling events. Then Corbyn fucked off on Holiday. Making a left-wing case for continued EU membership should have been one of the easiest things in the world, and Corbyn showed absolutely no leadership during the campaign. Fair enough, you might say, can't make someone enthusiastic in a cause they don't believe in. But then he should have gotten out of the way.
If he'd thrown his weight behind Leave, and campaigned vigorously for it, do you think there's a possibility it may have lost?
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
I have referred to Conwy CC new HQ building in Colwyn Bay which when opened saw the regeneration of Colwyn Bay centre from a previous wasteland, but since covid and it remaining empty these businesses have lost their clientele overnight and ruined their business model
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
I have referred to Conwy CC new HQ building in Colwyn Bay which when opened saw the regeneration of Colwyn Bay centre from a previous wasteland, but since covid and it remaining empty these businesses have lost their clientele overnight and ruined their business model
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
The lesson there might well be that LAs shouldn’t get involved in the commercial side of property development.
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
When was the precedent?
I was thinking of 1923, but having just looked it up, that was a minority Labour government with Lib Dem support.
Still, the Lib Dems ought to keep their options open for either party.
I don't deny that there will probably be a negative perception of such a coalition from the get-go if the Tories are the biggest party though. 'Coalition of losers' would be the catchphrase from the opposition and much of the press.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
I still rue the day we left and regard Brexit as the single biggest act of vandalism a nation has exacted on itself. Although I suppose as Brexit furnished us with PM Boris Johnson all the pain was worth it.
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
A genuine question - do you know just how many local businesses in city and town centres depend on their business model for clientele from these offices
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
When was the precedent?
I was thinking of 1923, but having just looked it up, that was a minority Labour government with Lib Dem support.
Still, the Lib Dems ought to keep their options open for either party.
I don't deny that there will probably be a negative perception of such a coalition from the get-go if the Tories are the biggest party though. 'Coalition of losers' would be the catchphrase from the opposition and much of the press.
I think that would be a little different if Labour had most votes though. The landing zone for most votes but fewer seats is quite broad. Up to c 3%. Difficult (though they'll try) to brand someone a loser when they've a few 100 000 more votes than you.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near 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 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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
I have referred to Conwy CC new HQ building in Colwyn Bay which when opened saw the regeneration of Colwyn Bay centre from a previous wasteland, but since covid and it remaining empty these businesses have lost their clientele overnight and ruined their business model
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
The lesson there might well be that LAs shouldn’t get involved in the commercial side of property development.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
I still rue the day we left and regard Brexit as the single biggest act of vandalism a nation has exacted on itself. Although I suppose as Brexit furnished us with PM Boris Johnson all the pain was worth it.
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
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?
I wouldn't mind; if it's possible for the Lib Dems to form a government with either of the major parties, they should go for the one that is likely to enable more Lib Dem policies to be enacted.
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
When was the precedent?
I was thinking of 1923, but having just looked it up, that was a minority Labour government with Lib Dem support.
Still, the Lib Dems ought to keep their options open for either party.
I don't deny that there will probably be a negative perception of such a coalition from the get-go if the Tories are the biggest party though. 'Coalition of losers' would be the catchphrase from the opposition and much of the press.
Exactly.
Would be especially problematic if the Tories offered a coalition with Libdems but the latter refused it only to go on to form one with the losing party/s - perhaps even more so if one of those is the SNP?.
Did you read the story? Assuming the Guardian got it right (a big assumption I know) Conde Nast was claiming the trade mark, not the copyright. They also backed down when the name of the village was pointed out to them, as it was the name of the pub they were worried by.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
I still rue the day we left and regard Brexit as the single biggest act of vandalism a nation has exacted on itself. Although I suppose as Brexit furnished us with PM Boris Johnson all the pain was worth it.
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
We do not want to attract people with wealth who are already rocketing house prices, buying second homes, and causing division within local communities
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
We do not want to attract people with wealth who are already rocketing house prices, buying second homes, and causing division within local communities
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
I still rue the day we left and regard Brexit as the single biggest act of vandalism a nation has exacted on itself. Although I suppose as Brexit furnished us with PM Boris Johnson all the pain was worth it.
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
I am a Europhile but I wouldn't vote rejoin now. There is too much water under the bridge, too much bad blood (loads of crap analogies) for the UK in the EU to be viable.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
I still rue the day we left and regard Brexit as the single biggest act of vandalism a nation has exacted on itself. Although I suppose as Brexit furnished us with PM Boris Johnson all the pain was worth it.
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
I think the word is 'pragmatic'
From pragmatic remainer to pragmatic leaver.
I certainly hope you are not referring to me as a "pragmatic leaver". Never! I was an arch-Remainer until the clock struck 11 on the 31st January (or whenever it was).
Times have changed, we can't put the spilled milk back in the bottle, so why try?
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see 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 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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
One that continues to proceed. In June 2021 it was announced that HMRC would close in Longbenton and Washington (not exactly thriving), and move all 9000 employees to the centre of Newcastle. A spectacularly unattractive building is being thrown up slap bang in the middle of an already successful area, evicting two dozen small businesses. And adding to congestion. For a net gain of zero long-term jobs.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
Brighton has always been popular with London commuters. But WFH means it is even more popular - they can live down here, and not have to spend money and time commuting to London every day. Going up to London one or two days a weeks is a doddle compared with full-time commuting. On the downside, of course, it means that house prices in Brighton have become even more absurd. Hence the spread of Labour voters east and west of the city, in search of cheaper housing.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
We do not want to attract people with wealth who are already rocketing house prices, buying second homes, and causing division within local communities
Well then don't vote for levelling up!
Levelling up is nothing to do with attracting the wealthy thankfully
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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
I have referred to Conwy CC new HQ building in Colwyn Bay which when opened saw the regeneration of Colwyn Bay centre from a previous wasteland, but since covid and it remaining empty these businesses have lost their clientele overnight and ruined their business model
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
If the clients aren't there then the clients will be elsewhere and people will be able to have businesses that serve the clients where they actually want to be.
We shouldn't have the state decreeing where people need to be. Having the state insist you must WFH was bad, having them say you must not is equally bad.
Let people and their employers choose. If there is a business reason why being in is good then that's for the employer/employee relationship to be discussing. If it's all externalities though, we need to be adapting and moving with the times.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
Brighton has always been popular with London commuters. But WFH means it is even more popular - they can live down here, and not have to spend money and time commuting to London every day. Going up to London one or two days a weeks is a doddle compared with full-time commuting. On the downside, of course, it means that house prices in Brighton have become even more absurd. Hence the spread of Labour voters east and west of the city, in search of cheaper housing.
Brighton was an interesting bellwether for so many southern seaside towns decades ago, wasn't it. Now the least previously fashionable places like Margate and Eastbourne are becoming trendy. As if Brighton relit the candle of nineteenth century fashionability for these places, continuing the lead role it had for this centuries ago, in a very different way 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."
Load of crap obviously. As if it would be a small piece of cheese.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
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.
I really hope hybrid working and WFH is here to stay. One of the key advantages of WFH is that it's more better for the environment. Instead the disingenuous fat fornicator and other Tory loons slag off WFH
I am so despondent that we have a Government that is so lacking in vision, so lacking in hope and so lack in human values.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
The football doesn't help Leeds. In a game of word association, if you say Leeds I think "dirty".
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
Brighton has always been popular with London commuters. But WFH means it is even more popular - they can live down here, and not have to spend money and time commuting to London every day. Going up to London one or two days a weeks is a doddle compared with full-time commuting. On the downside, of course, it means that house prices in Brighton have become even more absurd. Hence the spread of Labour voters east and west of the city, in search of cheaper housing.
Brighton was an interesting bellwether for so many southern seaside towns decades ago, wasn't it. Now the least previously fashionable places like Margate and Eastbourne are becoming trendy. As if Brighton relit the candle of nineteenth century fashionability for these places, as the lead role it had centuries ago, in a very different way too.
Global warming will help UK coastal towns too. They will boom in the next 30 years.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Agree. A period of Lab/LD government for 10 years and an offer to the UK to be in EFTA/EEA or EU with a derogation of FoM, like the one on the Euro, and it could happen.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
The football doesn't help Leeds. In a game of word association, if you say Leeds I think "dirty".
The ‘dirty’ football team, and the incomprehensible one-way system around the city centre.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
The football doesn't help Leeds. In a game of word association, if you say Leeds I think "dirty".
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
Yes. Without Scotland it's highly implausible, scratch that, nigh on impossible.
And I know you are going to tell me about a Labour mini- renaissance in Scotland. Remember 2017. A split Labour SNP constituency vote leads to more Conservative MPs North of the Border.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
Unlikely, but not outlandish. It will be economy that settles this as the middle class and the oldies feel a squeeze that they’ve not felt in years. Who do you trust to protect your job or your savings from inflation?
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.
WFH is one of the easiest ways to help levelling up....instead of spending cash commuting and in shops in the southeast I can move elsewhere and spend the cash locally there. Net result a drain of cash from london and more cash in the cheaper areas
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
Unlikely, but not outlandish. It will be economy that settles this as the middle class and the oldies feel a squeeze that they’ve not felt in years. Who do you trust to protect your job or your savings from inflation?
Hard to trust Boris on anything.
I'm not so sure. No Labour government has ever been elected other than in times of the greatest optimism for the future. 1929 is the only possible exception. And then they didn't win the popular vote Course. It is possible folk could think "Things can't possibly be worse" as in 1945.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
If it’s about aligning with a nuclear power to be under a nuclear umbrella, the decision’s already been made by Swedes (and Finns). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61408700
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
Unlikely, but not outlandish. It will be economy that settles this as the middle class and the oldies feel a squeeze that they’ve not felt in years. Who do you trust to protect your job or your savings from inflation?
Hard to trust Boris on anything.
I'm not so sure. No Labour majority government has ever been elected other than in times of the greatest optimism for the future.
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.
Yes, it'll be something along those lines. Owners of empty office block will be concerned, this looks like an attempt to help them.
I have referred to Conwy CC new HQ building in Colwyn Bay which when opened saw the regeneration of Colwyn Bay centre from a previous wasteland, but since covid and it remaining empty these businesses have lost their clientele overnight and ruined their business model
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
We need to be careful to ride the back of progress and get the best outcome, rather than trying to stand in its way. Traditional offices may have become like analogue watches, paintings, books etc. - still plentiful and a nice option, but no longer necessary to the way things are done. I like the idea that the wfh principle could revive small towns, perhaps in time, coffee shop/office hybrids will emerge in these places for people who prefer the approach of putting in a day 'somewhere else'. Offices will exist for face to face meetings and more collabarative projects.
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.
Once bitten, twice shy comes to mind
Don’t think you would need it in a manifesto. The vote itself provides its own mandate. That’s my point.
I just do not agree on something as important as this would be, and certainly I cannot see labour going anywhere near it
I’m not advocating anything, just highlighting that events might turn out differently and things might be as unexpected as the original referendum result.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
I cannot see another referendum on this subject, indeed indyref 2 is more likely
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
People didn’t see 2016 turning out the way it did. Politics is volatile. The economy is in the toilet. Right now I do not rule out any outcome, from another 10 years of Boris, a Labour landslide to a LibDem revival. Interesting times.
Interestingly I said last year that a Labour majority was plausible and was ridiculed for it.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
Unlikely, but not outlandish. It will be economy that settles this as the middle class and the oldies feel a squeeze that they’ve not felt in years. Who do you trust to protect your job or your savings from inflation?
Hard to trust Boris on anything.
I'm not so sure. No Labour majority government has ever been elected other than in times of the greatest optimism for the future.
Chicken egg.
Perhaps. Small sample too. But Tory majority is the historic default position. You need unusual circumstances to get summat else. Maybe this is 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 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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
Brighton has always been popular with London commuters. But WFH means it is even more popular - they can live down here, and not have to spend money and time commuting to London every day. Going up to London one or two days a weeks is a doddle compared with full-time commuting. On the downside, of course, it means that house prices in Brighton have become even more absurd. Hence the spread of Labour voters east and west of the city, in search of cheaper housing.
Brighton was an interesting bellwether for so many southern seaside towns decades ago, wasn't it. Now the least previously fashionable places like Margate and Eastbourne are becoming trendy. As if Brighton relit the candle of nineteenth century fashionability for these places, as the lead role it had centuries ago, in a very different way too.
Global warming will help UK coastal towns too. They will boom in the next 30 years.
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.
It's almost as if the government's policy lacks coherence. HMRC spent millions setting up regional hubs in provincial cities in the name of levelling up. Trouble is Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol are already doing quite well for themselves. In the process they shut down hundreds of local tax offices in precisely the kind of struggling towns that the government says it wants to reinvigorate.
You mean there is more to the north than Liverpool and Manchester? (And they only know Liverpool because of the football....)
Leeds says hello. (Sadly, though, not because of the football any more).
The football doesn't help Leeds. In a game of word association, if you say Leeds I think "dirty".
Unsuccessful and relegated spring to mind next.
You, and others may mock. When I was growing up in Leeds, we had the best football team in the country, the best county cricket team, and the best rugby league team. We also had the best music (The Who - Live at Leeds for example). Some time ago, admittedly.
The glory days will return, and you'll all have to take Leeds seriously again. I hope.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
Brighton has always been popular with London commuters. But WFH means it is even more popular - they can live down here, and not have to spend money and time commuting to London every day. Going up to London one or two days a weeks is a doddle compared with full-time commuting. On the downside, of course, it means that house prices in Brighton have become even more absurd. Hence the spread of Labour voters east and west of the city, in search of cheaper housing.
Brighton was an interesting bellwether for so many southern seaside towns decades ago, wasn't it. Now the least previously fashionable places like Margate and Eastbourne are becoming trendy. As if Brighton relit the candle of nineteenth century fashionability for these places, as the lead role it had centuries ago, in a very different way too.
Global warming will help UK coastal towns too. They will boom in the next 30 years.
Assuming they are not underwater.
A bit shit for those settlements low down on a flat area, with high or unstable land behind. Think of Pennan for instance (the one used in many shots in the film Local Hero).
It's not a new thesis - I remember reading a pamphlet from the Jubilee Centre called "Reactivating the Extended Family" over 30 years ago which was making the same sort of argument (though maybe not in such an extreme form). Unlike this article, it also included policy proposals for rebuilding extended family life. But how relevant they would be 30-40 years later I'm not sure, and I can't remember much of the detail.
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.
I would suggest that the vast majority of people do not have the luxury of working from home and it seems it is a section of the populace who have this opportunity which may as you say benefit some local businesses.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
It wouldnt be the brand new offices converted to residential. It would be older ones. And Colwyn Bay is probably somewhere that would benefit greatly from wfh.
The evidence is quite the opposite
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
If people can work anywhere in the country then over time people will move to seaside places. It will take a few years to filter through, but people with wealth will move there and spend more money there.
We do not want to attract people with wealth who are already rocketing house prices, buying second homes, and causing division within local communities
Well then don't vote for levelling up!
Levelling up is nothing to do with attracting the wealthy thankfully
Trouble is that if levelled-up towns become nicer places to live and work, the wealthy will inevitably be more attracted to them. And the golden rule is that the more gold you have, the more you get to make the rules.
It's like the critique of gentrification that you hear in Hackney, or (in a slightly different tone) the resentment of change in somewhere like Romford. People don't like change, even if it's ultimately for the better. There's also a fear of being priced out of your hometown, which is understandable.
But the answer to that one is pretty simple- build more homes of the sort that people want to live in in the places where people want to live. Bart R is right on that one, though I think he's wrong about what those homes should look like.
The idea that communities can level up without changing... That's the something for nothing claptrap that this government specialises in.
Technically true but not realistically true. It would require the Liberal Democrats to gain 50 to 60 seats from the Tories in constituencies like Mid Sussex, Epsom and Ewell, Chelmsford and Surrey Heath and a huge Tory to LD swing of 14 to 15%.
More realistically Starmer could become PM gaining about 50 seats from the Tories with another 10 to 20 gains from the Tories coming from the Liberal Democrats. Then Starmer could become PM in a hung parliament even if Labour was still well short of an overall majority
Have you seen any analysis of the swing away from the Conservatives in farming constituencies? Monmouthshire, and the Cumbria seats suggest that farmers are not happy with the NZ and Australia FTAs.
It was also likely to be a factor in the Somerset result - which suggests that the West Country LibDem/Tory battlegrounds will come back into play at the next election.
I guess we'll know more after the Tractor-themed by-election.
The farmers and rural constituencies are another plank in the Blue Wall of course - and have been neglected by the Conservatives for a long time. Truss represents a farming seat, doesn't she?
Comments
The Conservatives couldn't very well argue with this, as they have supported this electoral system, and there is precedent for this.
It would be hilarious though if Labour and the Lib Dems did have a pre-election pact, but then after the election the only stable majority government ends up being Lib Dems/Conservatives again. It would be what all three parties deserve.
Corbyn's position was mendacious. A life long Eurosceptic, a man who had never changed his view on anything in his life, decided suddenly that he was pro-EU. At best he was ambivalent, at worst he was against the whole thing. Either way, that came through during his lackluster campaigning. And we know from 2017 that, when he wants to, Jeremy Corbyn can campaign.
On top of that, there are multiple allegations that Labour HQ was actively interfering in the Labour Remain campaign to its detriment, removing positive references to the EU and cancelling events. Then Corbyn fucked off on Holiday. Making a left-wing case for continued EU membership should have been one of the easiest things in the world, and Corbyn showed absolutely no leadership during the campaign. Fair enough, you might say, can't make someone enthusiastic in a cause they don't believe in. But then he should have gotten out of the way.
We were top banana. Our renegotiated re entry would likely as not be substantially worse than what we had when we left, so no thank you.
EFTA, by all means (I'd like freedom to move around Europe) but paying the club subs and having a say on the committee, nah, been there done that, worn the T shirt.
If city commuting is only viable with a subsidy, then maybe city living just isn't that affordable? Is it any wonder that cities are 'levelled up' more when the cost of commuting within or into them is being heavily subsidised so much? While the rest of the country not only pays for their own transport but is heavily taxed on top of it.
However, the idea the new HQ in Colwyn Bay can suddenly be converted to homes etc is unrealistic in view of the capital costs, conversion costs and the location, which would not attract high value buyers which could only defray all that capital outflow
Nothing is as simple as one would try to make it
The need to level up the provinces is real and important. The productivity of not-London English cities is relatively rubbish. One theory (not proven, but looks convincing to me) is that road based, lowish density development means we don't get the same agglomeration benefits that continental cities do;
https://www.tomforth.co.uk/birminghamisasmallcity/
So rail based public transport has a cost, sure. So will a transition to a less office based working culture. But the alternative (keep driving to the office everyone) is a bigger, but hidden, cost in forgone economic growth.
And that issue- genteel decline now (after all, we're comfy) over putting the investment in to benefit the future- has been the British disease all my life.
Funny, isn't it, that Brexit pitted Cameron, who thought he could not lose, against Boris, who thought he could not win.
In this case the owner of this huge building is the LA not some private venture capitalist
Still, the Lib Dems ought to keep their options open for either party.
I don't deny that there will probably be a negative perception of such a coalition from the get-go if the Tories are the biggest party though. 'Coalition of losers' would be the catchphrase from the opposition and much of the press.
Colwyn Bay suddenly became vibrant with the opening of the new offices with lots of businesses opening and now the town centre has died as the office remains vacant and the businesses have no clientele
But that was then, this is now. We are where we are.
The landing zone for most votes but fewer seats is quite broad. Up to c 3%.
Difficult (though they'll try) to brand someone a loser when they've a few 100 000 more votes than you.
Would be especially problematic if the Tories offered a coalition with Libdems but the latter refused it only to go on to form one with the losing party/s - perhaps even more so if one of those is the SNP?.
The idea that anyone would say you cannot consult the public because consulting the public wasn’t in the manifesto is absurd. You consult the public precisely because it wasn’t in your manifesto.
Times have changed, we can't put the spilled milk back in the bottle, so why try?
Time will change the relationship with the EU but becoming members again, I just do not see it
In June 2021 it was announced that HMRC would close in Longbenton and Washington (not exactly thriving), and move all 9000 employees to the centre of Newcastle.
A spectacularly unattractive building is being thrown up slap bang in the middle of an already successful area, evicting two dozen small businesses.
And adding to congestion. For a net gain of zero long-term jobs.
We shouldn't have the state decreeing where people need to be. Having the state insist you must WFH was bad, having them say you must not is equally bad.
Let people and their employers choose. If there is a business reason why being in is good then that's for the employer/employee relationship to be discussing. If it's all externalities though, we need to be adapting and moving with the times.
I am so despondent that we have a Government that is so lacking in vision, so lacking in hope and so lack in human values.
My logic was that any swing big enough to see a Labour minority might also be big enough to see a Labour majority. Four years is a long time for a Parliament and once you reach a tipping point it can move quickly.
Well it's not looking so outlandish now, is it?
And should have been on the table in 2016.
And I know you are going to tell me about a Labour mini- renaissance in Scotland. Remember 2017. A split Labour SNP constituency vote leads to more Conservative MPs North of the Border.
Hard to trust Boris on anything.
No Labour government has ever been elected other than in times of the greatest optimism for the future.
1929 is the only possible exception. And then they didn't win the popular vote
Course. It is possible folk could think "Things can't possibly be worse" as in 1945.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61408700
But Tory majority is the historic default position.
You need unusual circumstances to get summat else. Maybe this is it?
The glory days will return, and you'll all have to take Leeds seriously again. I hope.
Edit: I've just found that it's actually available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/8123564/reactivating-the-extended-family-jubilee-centre/35
It's like the critique of gentrification that you hear in Hackney, or (in a slightly different tone) the resentment of change in somewhere like Romford. People don't like change, even if it's ultimately for the better. There's also a fear of being priced out of your hometown, which is understandable.
But the answer to that one is pretty simple- build more homes of the sort that people want to live in in the places where people want to live. Bart R is right on that one, though I think he's wrong about what those homes should look like.
The idea that communities can level up without changing... That's the something for nothing claptrap that this government specialises in.
Have you seen any analysis of the swing away from the Conservatives in farming constituencies? Monmouthshire, and the Cumbria seats suggest that farmers are not happy with the NZ and Australia FTAs.
It was also likely to be a factor in the Somerset result - which suggests that the West Country LibDem/Tory battlegrounds will come back into play at the next election.
I guess we'll know more after the Tractor-themed by-election.
The farmers and rural constituencies are another plank in the Blue Wall of course - and have been neglected by the Conservatives for a long time. Truss represents a farming seat, doesn't she?