Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
You could have stopped after the first sentence, you already won a lot of people over after three words.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
There’s “travelling for work” which - for most people - means flying into a town, staying in a pleasant hotel and doing a load of meetings then flying out again, with maybe a couple of hours to explore and a nice dinner
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
Swallows are wheeling around the mighty vaults. Sinters gleam on the higher peaks, scars and seams of whiteness on the rockface
Down in the valley the freezing river Voidomatis leaps from the living rocks of the gorge, and cascades joyously between the cliffs and oaks, making backwaters of dazzling turquoise, then it swoons under the Ottoman bridge, and is never seen again
Tempted to "like", but not sure I want to encourage
That's a fabulous story. Huge kudos to the lad for coming out at the tender age of 17, and telling his story so well. He'll be an icon for the gay (footballing and elsewhere) community, I reckon.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
Not sure, my daughter had a friend who worked for them for a while and she was on civil service terms and directly employed. There may have been others who were not.
On topic. Boris is spot on with suspicions of home working bringing far too many negatives, and the electorate will support him.
More productive or less productive? Those trying to work from home whilst child minding are obviously less productive than both themselves in office without those distractions and a colleague wfh without those distractions. Also depends on tasks. A task needing face-to-face communication is going to be less productive without it.
don’t call it working from home, call it remote working, for then you have people working remotely since year dot you can compare it to. Back in the sixties there was a study of People out and about working remotely fixing office machinery, each knew a different trick the others didn’t. When they all got together in a diner for a meal they shared all these tricks and productivity shot up. If knowledge share drops off due to remote working, it’s a huge hit on productivity that can only be noticed over longer time spans not shorter ones, why? Becuase most studies have innovation is a key part of productivity, and innovation is now proved to being killed by remote working the earlier studies didn’t pick up.
Unions should be wary about it. It can’t be measured solely as working from home getting tasks done versus in office getting tasks done. If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work.
Rees Mogg is winning this argument single handedly, though Boris intervention has helped. Mogg said it’s used for long weekends, Mondays, Fridays, is he wrong? Let’s look at the stat for the days people most work remotely…
Are you a Lib Dem or a dyed-in-the-wool Tory? It's confusing. You seem more enchanted with Johnson than you were with Mme Le Pen which is a long way down the rabbit hole
As Lord Gnome would say 'I think we should be told!'
Pen 😦 I didn’t like Pen at all, made clear in all posts she would never get my vote. I tried to slap your complacency, with wake up Roger its closer and dicier this time, but you weren’t listening. Fortunately, after scary even polls straight after round 1, macron built a gap.
It’s good we share likes and agreements in art and cinema, despite you not agreeing with my topical political posts because you have weird politics. The problem with personal jibes like Pen one, like the Enoch Powell one you made is that they don’t really work if they are not backed up by explaining how they tie in with someone’s bit of analysis they have posted? Which of my views is Pen or Enoch Powell? I’m posting to actually welcome such feedback. It will help me learn more. As I had to look up Enoch Powell, who turns out to be a top Tory who was in Labour first, and was somewhere to the left of the Boris government on immigration policy. But that was just he was shaped by the times he was in, when world wasn’t global village, and we could still dream of being global Britain without it being a joke idea?
In fact Marx said something like his views are shaped by being a German Jew living in exile in London, I’m also perfectly straight up and honest about myself - brought up in Yorkshire (proper Yorkshire North Yorkshire lass) family of Tory party members, and I am the only one whose never voted Tory! Since posting on PB I think I have become even more a Lib Dem supporter, because things are posted here about what Boris government do that make me really mad. But I’m still right wing, anti union baron, staunch defender of how important our monarchy is, and the Church of England too, and by believing in God and CoE I’m instantly out of step with about 90% of PB posters I’m sure! Being Gen Z (just) makes me out of step with 90% of PB thinking I suspect. I live in Chelsea with my millennial girlfriend who I want to Marry, espicelly on nights like this when she’s gone drinking after work or volleyball and keeps texting “back soon”. And I love pigs, because they have been fun with me my entire life
So I don’t expect you to agree with my politics and analysis Roger, because we are different people living different lives isn’t it, so disagreements with anyone as I post wrong calls don’t bother me at all because all my thoughts all come from an honest place. But you can at least get the facts right in your posts. 😇
I sometimes vote Lib Dem but I agree our politics don't seem to have anything in common. I can't remember talking to you about Powell unless you are a reincarnation of Isam? I did live in Chelsea (Jubilee Place) but you probably weren't around then. Anyway reading your posts it's clear the Chelsea Lib Dems have moved a long way since I lived there.
But keep up the good work any vote against Johnson is good with me.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
You could have stopped after the first sentence, you already won a lot of people over after three words.
Usually three words from me and the pitchforks are oot. I wonder if she does Secret Sanna at Christmas?
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
There’s “travelling for work” which - for most people - means flying into a town, staying in a pleasant hotel and doing a load of meetings then flying out again, with maybe a couple of hours to explore and a nice dinner
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
I do try to dislike you, but you do make it difficult sometimes!
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Another issue is that Covid hasn't gone away, and returning to the office undoubtedly increases the frequency with which staff are off because they've caught it. I have a colleague - about 40, very fit - who has been off work for more than a week with high fever and constant coughing. If staying at home makes my team less likely to catch it *and* they prefer it *and* they're delivering what I ask of them, then I really don't object. If we have something that is best done in the office, then I'd like them to come in. But not just to tick a box.
The underlying problem is that the Government appears to be trying to win back core votes simply by slagging off the civil service. I simply don't believe that Johnson (or Rees-Mogg) have enough insight into the detailed work done by the civil service to form a sound judgment on whether their individual jobs are best done in the office. Nor is it particularly good management to muse publcly that you're thinking of getting rid of a fifth of your workforce, without actually intiating the process of consultation and redundancy.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
Yes, mostly. Probably the same people who'll replace, at a higher cost, the 91,000 civil servants moved off the books to reduce the headcount.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
There’s “travelling for work” which - for most people - means flying into a town, staying in a pleasant hotel and doing a load of meetings then flying out again, with maybe a couple of hours to explore and a nice dinner
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
When I worked for Goldman, business travel was like this:
- get up at 445am for an early flight - go from Heathrow to Helsinki - spend four hours in meetings (where all I was expected to do was take notes) - fly back - spend plane journey writing up notes - get back home at 10pm - go to the pub with my housemates - 11:14pm, receive text that I need to be in Stockholm the next day. - Regret pub visit
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
There’s “travelling for work” which - for most people - means flying into a town, staying in a pleasant hotel and doing a load of meetings then flying out again, with maybe a couple of hours to explore and a nice dinner
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
When I worked for Goldman, business travel was like this:
- get up at 445am for an early flight - go from Heathrow to Helsinki - spend four hours in meetings (where all I was expected to do was take notes) - fly back - spend plane journey writing up notes - get back home at 10pm - go to the pub with my housemates - 11:14pm, receive text that I need to be in Stockholm the next day. - Regret pub visit
Repeat
Shouldn't you have been in that bar across the road that one of the partners at Goldmans opened?
Bank governor in 'apocalyptic' warning over rising food prices
Lots of stories of fish and chip shops having to close, why is that, the oil crisis?
What should we be stocking up with in our freezers and spare bedroom? What will go sky high so better to stash and store now to avoid costs? What will get rationed first to prevent banditry, or we won’t be able to get for months?
Crisps? Frozen fries and chips? Wasn’t there a moment in first lockdown flour cost more than cocaine?
I find it much more easy to be productive at home. I don't spend roughly an hour a day saying "Morning Jeff. How was your weekend?" Nor, being distracted by colleagues who can't cope without verbalising their internal monologues for fear that a moment of peace may cause them to reflect on the vacuity of their existence.
Its stunning and mildly depressing that this is even a story.
Maybe, but in the macho world of football it is a story. This lad's tale is part of the process of changing the culture of football so that, in time, a gay footballer would not be remotely newsworthy. It's progress, though it shouldn't have to be like that.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
Exactly.
It is worth remembering that NATO was designed and implemented as the reverse of the Iron Curtain style stuff. Membership is voluntary - no one really even argued when the French semi-left, back in the day.
The "requirements" for spending are promises that aren't even in the "pinkie promise" range, diplomatically.
Even the "requirement" to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members is vague to the point that you could quite honestly claim that sending a diplomatic note was enough.
It is this total flexibility and lack of enforcement that is actually NATO's strength.
It's an odd beast, isn't it. I deduce that in practice (as opposed to theory) America have the sole veto over who joins since it's their umbrella that members seek to shelter under. And America will exercise their veto if they answer 'yes' and 'no' respectively to the following questions - Is this applicant at all likely to be attacked by Russia at some point? If it is, are we up for risking nuclear war to defend them?
Er - anyone can veto new members. It requires complete unanimity to join.
Which is why Turkey did some horse trading to get some nice stuff in return for their grumbles.
In theory, yes, but I bet in practice it's America who have the sole *real* veto. Doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
All seems a bit out of touch and has the air of 'dead cat' about it.
My current place of work shut the original office and have moved next door, down from 2000+ desks to 3-400 flexible ones. There is no way we can ever fit back in even if we want to.
I've been going in most weeks for a day, but it is dead and feels somewhat futile. Good if the whole team is in, but otherwise just a mild bit of socialising and pondering how much less productive we are in the office.
Downside of WFH for me is I tend to start work earlier and finish later, not really mastered the work life balance bit.
Ta MrB
This is, of course, why the moneybags that back certain Tory MPs are very concerned about wfh: it is devaluing city centre real estate.
I am familiar with a number of companies that have greeted the move to wider WFH with joy and gladness as it has freed them from the very considerable expense of moving to larger office space. Repeat that across the country & all those city centre tower blocks are never going to make the expected rental income for the forseeabe future. If the establishment is reaching for the culture war toolbox already then the situation must really be dire.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
Not sure, my daughter had a friend who worked for them for a while and she was on civil service terms and directly employed. There may have been others who were not.
That might well be perfectly accurate while not changing the general UK picture significantly. I'm reasonably sure that Scotland went at least partly for fleshing out the Public Health structure already in existence in central and local gmt, but memory fades as to the details - they may have used contractors for some of it, anyway.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Another issue is that Covid hasn't gone away, and returning to the office undoubtedly increases the frequency with which staff are off because they've caught it. I have a colleague - about 40, very fit - who has been off work for more than a week with high fever and constant coughing. If staying at home makes my team less likely to catch it *and* they prefer it *and* they're delivering what I ask of them, then I really don't object. If we have something that is best done in the office, then I'd like them to come in. But not just to tick a box.
The underlying problem is that the Government appears to be trying to win back core votes simply by slagging off the civil service. I simply don't believe that Johnson (or Rees-Mogg) have enough insight into the detailed work done by the civil service to form a sound judgment on whether their individual jobs are best done in the office. Nor is it particularly good management to muse publcly that you're thinking of getting rid of a fifth of your workforce, without actually intiating the process of consultation and redundancy.
I think with the current variations of Covid dreams of avoiding it (as I had for 2 years) are delusional. All you can do is vaccinate up and hope for the best. I kept working (from home) throughout my Covid episode but I would not pretend for a minute it was anything like normal. I went for a sleep in the afternoon 3 days in a row. We do have to accept that more people are going to be off than usual for a long time.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
Do you get to travel with someone else or is it OMO with no more company than PornHub?
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
Exactly.
It is worth remembering that NATO was designed and implemented as the reverse of the Iron Curtain style stuff. Membership is voluntary - no one really even argued when the French semi-left, back in the day.
The "requirements" for spending are promises that aren't even in the "pinkie promise" range, diplomatically.
Even the "requirement" to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members is vague to the point that you could quite honestly claim that sending a diplomatic note was enough.
It is this total flexibility and lack of enforcement that is actually NATO's strength.
It's an odd beast, isn't it. I deduce that in practice (as opposed to theory) America have the sole veto over who joins since it's their umbrella that members seek to shelter under. And America will exercise their veto if they answer 'yes' and 'no' respectively to the following questions - Is this applicant at all likely to be attacked by Russia at some point? If it is, are we up for risking nuclear war to defend them?
Er - anyone can veto new members. It requires complete unanimity to join.
Which is why Turkey did some horse trading to get some nice stuff in return for their grumbles.
In theory, yes, but I bet in practice it's America who have the sole *real* veto. Doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
Why doesn't it make sense to you?
The assumption that it must be a US Empire is very Russian thinking.
The fact that America *lends* nuclear weapons to other countries - what do you make of that?
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
It is up to the boss to decide which is most effective. If people need to be in the office I have no issue with that being mandated by the bosses in the civil service or private industry. It has nothing to do with politicians.
In the Public Sector the politicians are the boss. They are accountable for the performance of their departments and the quality of services they provide and they are responding to public frustration that it is not nearly good enough for the money that is being spent.
I think it is the politicians job to set policy and the civil servants to implement it.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
There is no way that Abramovich will be allowed to demand Chelsea are sold at his benefit
And Chelsea are one club and the premiership will be huge with or without Chelsea
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Realistically he holds the cards here, interesting to see if the government blink.
Perhaps the govt can do some kind of deal with FA and Premier League to let new Chelsea 2022 Ltd straight back to the top but that is very different to how other smaller clubs have been treated.
Otherwise going to be a lot of disgruntled Chelsea fans, and it does not matter much to Abramovich if they blame him, whereas it will do to the Tories.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
I'd dispute T and T not working. The testing scandal that hit the SW, with lots of false negative tests really did lead to a spike as people who were positive, thought they weren't and went out and about. T and T was unable to fully siuppres covid because of the infectious period without symptoms. Other diseases, that are only spreading when you are symptomatic, are far easier to suppress. But T and T almost certainly did suppress covid to a greater or lesser extent.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
Just sell it to a wealthy non Russian Tory donor, after all Chelsea had the highest percentage of Tory voters amongst its supporters in the Premier League
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
So in political terms, any urban area which constitutes more than one consituency is a city.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
So in political terms, any urban area which constitutes more than one consituency is a city.
Largely, with a fee exceptions eg Hereford and Guildford
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
So in political terms, any urban area which constitutes more than one consituency is a city.
Largely, with a few exceptions eg Hereford and Guildford which have over 50,000 people and a cathedral but only 1 constituency
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
Imma not checking my phone there's a boy I want to bang down the club. She also has expenses issues apparently. She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Realistically he holds the cards here, interesting to see if the government blink.
Perhaps the govt can do some kind of deal with FA and Premier League to let new Chelsea 2022 Ltd straight back to the top but that is very different to how other smaller clubs have been treated.
Otherwise going to be a lot of disgruntled Chelsea fans, and it does not matter much to Abramovich if they blame him, whereas it will do to the Tories.
HMG cannot concede to Abramovich no matter how upset Chelsea fans may be and on this the country would back HMG not Chelsea
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
There is no way that Abramovich will be allowed to demand Chelsea are sold at his benefit
And Chelsea are one club and the premiership will be huge with or without Chelsea
Your post Big G has massive betting implications. Not least, if it gets Arsenal into the CL I lose a big bet 😦.
I should be smiling by the end of this evening though 😸
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
Some places are obvious. My parents village has around 2000 people - clearly a village. My town has around 18000 - clearly a town. But Swindon, with 157,000 is still only a town. Bath (a City) has around 90,000. So its not always obvious.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Realistically he holds the cards here, interesting to see if the government blink.
Perhaps the govt can do some kind of deal with FA and Premier League to let new Chelsea 2022 Ltd straight back to the top but that is very different to how other smaller clubs have been treated.
Otherwise going to be a lot of disgruntled Chelsea fans, and it does not matter much to Abramovich if they blame him, whereas it will do to the Tories.
HMG cannot concede to Abramovich no matter how upset Chelsea fans may be and on this the country would back HMG not Chelsea
Plus Leeds, Everton and Burnley would all be saved!
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
The government is not restricting itself to moaning about WFH among its own employees, though that is their focus. It is quite clear they don't want anyone doing it, as they criticise it in generalities, as a concept, not merely as it relates to government business.
Well, to that extent I would disagree with them unless they have clear evidence that it is affecting national productivity adversely. That does seem to be the public sector experience but it is not likely to be universal, not at all. Of course they may be worried too about the adverse effect on the funding of public transport systems, city centre shops etc too. But they need to sort out their own house before they start criticising others who may be doing it better.
Point of order. Do we know the staffing is the same?
And some of the delay will be backlog from the lockdowns. This is not attributable to the availability of WFH, strictly, in itself - but there is a connection also if the demand is itself a backlog. eg passports suddenly obsolescing en bloc over 2 years.
Of course, this doesn't escuse lack of action of whatever kind needed.
I think that backlogs in a lot of areas undoubtedly increased during lockdowns (although that itself is some evidence that WFH is simply not as efficient for adminstrative tasks); the public sector had extremely cautious isolation protocols so the time staff were off skyrocketed and of course a lot of people were ill. But its time to pull a finger out, several in fact.
Quite right - let's clear the backlog, whatever its causes, which are likely to be multiple.
JRM - let's start by getting rid of 91,000 civil servants. That'll help!
Didn't we employ at least that many for the contact test and trace people? A reasonable enough idea that should have been abandoned much, much earlier as a total failure.
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
T&T was mostly contractors, commercial firms, etc., though, wasn't it? So not on the CS slate.
Yes, mostly. Probably the same people who'll replace, at a higher cost, the 91,000 civil servants moved off the books to reduce the headcount.
I flicked through here yesterday and someone said the people in the food banks would be delighted that the government were getting rid of 91,000 civil servants!
I couldn't figure it out but PB's a bit like that these days. Did they want an extra 91,000 needing the food banks?
I find it much more easy to be productive at home. I don't spend roughly an hour a day saying "Morning Jeff. How was your weekend?" Nor, being distracted by colleagues who can't cope without verbalising their internal monologues for fear that a moment of peace may cause them to reflect on the vacuity of their existence.
Each to their own. I work more productively overall by engaging in work socialisation.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
Blimey. Personally I'd think anything over 100 is a village not a hamlet. My gut says 15-30 is medium town, 5-15 small town. But that's just preference.
Of course, as we know a city in the UK can be any size at all, including the scale of a small village, so none of it makes any sense anyway.
There are large villages with 5 to 10,000 people, a handful bigger still. Most hamlets in practice yes have barely a hundred people if that.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
Some places are obvious. My parents village has around 2000 people - clearly a village. My town has around 18000 - clearly a town. But Swindon, with 157,000 is still only a town. Bath (a City) has around 90,000. So its not always obvious.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
There is no way that Abramovich will be allowed to demand Chelsea are sold at his benefit
And Chelsea are one club and the premiership will be huge with or without Chelsea
Your post Big G has massive betting implications. Not least, if it gets Arsenal into the CL I lose a big bet 😦.
I should be smiling by the end of this evening though 😈
I hadn't thought of that but then Chelsea may suffer points deduction rather than extinction whicb would have the same effect
This is the telegraph article but it is behind the paywalll
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Realistically he holds the cards here, interesting to see if the government blink.
Perhaps the govt can do some kind of deal with FA and Premier League to let new Chelsea 2022 Ltd straight back to the top but that is very different to how other smaller clubs have been treated.
Otherwise going to be a lot of disgruntled Chelsea fans, and it does not matter much to Abramovich if they blame him, whereas it will do to the Tories.
HMG cannot concede to Abramovich no matter how upset Chelsea fans may be and on this the country would back HMG not Chelsea
Perhaps it will be extension after extension until the war is over.
Or fudge. They cannot publicly concede to Abramovich but perhaps they can claim victory with the monies being held by some charity in the Caymans with unlisted directors or whatever in a way that satisfies Abramovich.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Not many out of 42 cathedrals in total then
No not too many. But enough that population on its own can't be a determining factor
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Not many out of 42 cathedrals in total then
No not too many. But enough that population on its own can't be a determining factor
There's no debate on that, we know for a fact it is not a factor. HYUFD can correctly point out the general trends of our towns/cities, as that is not in dispute with the legal definition allowing much else.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Not many out of 42 cathedrals in total then
16% is quite a lot!
It's not some uncertain debate, we know cities don't require a specific scale, although most as you note will be above a certain level (much to the chagrin of those who are left out, like Reading, who I believe put up 'city centre' signs regardless).
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
In terms of criticism for incoherent a post ending up agreeing with my central suspicion of government concession, how coherent a critique is that?
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
Imma not checking my phone there's a boy I want to bang down the club. She also has expenses issues apparently. She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
Survey done. Young renters, and people living alone, want offices for social and career development reasons. Not necessarily 100%, but for many of them renting and sharing with others, they want the 100% option. Topped-out and familied commuters want full WFH except for special events that will of course be organised by people actually attending the office. Anecdotally this group was also harder to reach during the full-remote period of high Covid. Bosses want at least some office time to keep the first group from getting lost and the second group from going AWOL.
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
It is up to the boss to decide which is most effective. If people need to be in the office I have no issue with that being mandated by the bosses in the civil service or private industry. It has nothing to do with politicians.
In the Public Sector the politicians are the boss. They are accountable for the performance of their departments and the quality of services they provide and they are responding to public frustration that it is not nearly good enough for the money that is being spent.
I think it is the politicians job to set policy and the civil servants to implement it.
But we hold them responsible for implementation as well as policy so they are entitled to have a view.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
In terms of criticism for incoherent a post ending up agreeing with my central suspicion of government concession, how coherent a critique is that?
Coherence is not my strong point.
But there is still a difference between your premise that the government 'have' to blink first, and my thinking merely that they will blink first without having to.
Your premise rests on the idea the government position is weak and they have little choice. But my premise is their position is stronger than that, they have choice, they just won't exercise it.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
Imma not checking my phone there's a boy I want to bang down the club. She also has expenses issues apparently. She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Great point with 3. Pretending to be busy is one of the biggest sources of stress at work - note it falls heaviest on the middle ranks because low grades are genuinely busy and high grades don't have to pretend - and it takes its greatest toll in an office as opposed to WFH.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
Imma not checking my phone there's a boy I want to bang down the club. She also has expenses issues apparently. She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
She's not a Tory, she's leader of the Finnish SDP – it's a centre-left party.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Great point with 3. Having to pretend to be busy is one of the biggest sources of stress at work - note it falls heaviest on the middle ranks because low grades are genuinely busy and high grades don't have to pretend to be - and it takes its greatest toll in an office as opposed to WFH.
To be fair, somebody gets the "busywork" - which is an uncharitable way of saying tasks that primarily benefit others with little direct benefit (on top of the wage, natch). This could be things that are literally pointless, but likely the vast majority brings benefits to someone. It could be on-the-job training that's useless to the jaded trainer but incredibly valuable to the 21-year old trainee. Of course you can vanish and try to dodge them but this is the problem isn't it?
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
If you want to be depressed about your job read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. Did a better job at advocating for the idea of universal basic income than any political party attempt. Still not convinced, but the soul suckingness of many jobs was convincingly put.
I wanted to join this debate earlier and the irony I've not been able to because I've been working hard at home isn't entirely lost on me.
This isn't really about Working At or From Home (WFH) any more. Individuals and companies have been able to work it out for themselves and there's no one size fits all. A lot depends on the prevailing company culture, what the company does and the demographic of its work force.
None of that matters - as long as there is no coercion either way (ideally and of course an employee has the right to leave if they feel the "rules" of their company are too strict or don't work for them as an individual), it doesn't really matter.
Part of "being in the office" now (I'd argue) is not to do the routine transactional work but to do that networking or collaborative activity that undoubtedly benefits from people being together. That in turn means changing the office itself from the banks of desks to more open spaces so that it's far less about how we work than where we work.
Many organisations have been moving away from the traditional working environment to something different for years before the pandemic - more open spaces, network and collaborative areas, bigger and more diverse meeting spaces.
Yet, as I say, it's not even about any of this.
It's about a Conservative Prime Minister telling people what to do, how to do it and where to do it. His is a somewhat unusual situation - it's not so much that he works at home but he lives in the office.
The "bully pulpit" (to coin a phrase) sounds odd from a man who waxes lyrical about freedom and "setting people free". This is where I struggle with Johnson - he has a vision for Britain but he cannot articulate it because, like so much else about him, it comes replete with its own contradictions. He wants to set us free yet at the same time he wants to be in control and to be seen to have that control.
Conservatives used to believe in freedom of choice, the right of individuals, companies and institutions to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those - his pronouncements on home working mark him not as a Conservative (for all his rhetoric) but as a statist social democrat - more David Owen than Margaret Thatcher.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
A substantial points deduction this season so they can't qualify for any European competition but don't get relegated would seem to me to be a fair compromise.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
In January, Putin goes to the Oracle of Delphi. He asks her: "If I invade Ukraine, what will happen?" The Oracle replies: "If you invade Ukraine, Ukraine will become as neutral as Finland!"
On topic: Whether Boris is right or wrong about working from home the key thing is it is none of his f-ing business.
Honestly these Conservatives with their mantra of not getting involved in peoples lives just can't help themselves from doing just that.
Except it is the government's business if people cannot work because their driving licences have not been processed, cannot go on holiday because productivity at the Passport Office has collapsed, if, as is the case locally, it is taking more than a month for a consultant's letter to be typed and posted, if people cannot sell their homes bought 4 years ago because they still don't have a valid title, if people are sitting in jail for more than a year before coming to trial, etc etc.
Private businesses can and should do what they like and what suits them best but the service being provided by HMG across a range of functions at the moment is not nearly good enough and the government is (rightly) getting the flack for it.
It is up to the boss to decide which is most effective. If people need to be in the office I have no issue with that being mandated by the bosses in the civil service or private industry. It has nothing to do with politicians.
In the Public Sector the politicians are the boss. They are accountable for the performance of their departments and the quality of services they provide and they are responding to public frustration that it is not nearly good enough for the money that is being spent.
I think it is the politicians job to set policy and the civil servants to implement it.
But we hold them responsible for implementation as well as policy so they are entitled to have a view.
We have a few interesting case studies for civil servants v politician accountability in Scotland at the mo. Ferries and census.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
This is nothing to do with protecting Chelsea conservative voters but doing the right thing and it cannot wait until the war is over, as next seasons Champions league places and the final premier league table for this season will have to be clarified by June
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
Imma not checking my phone there's a boy I want to bang down the club. She also has expenses issues apparently. She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
You could have stopped after the first sentence, you already won a lot of people over after three words.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
A substantial points deduction this season so they can't qualify for any European competition but don't get relegated would seem to me to be a fair compromise.
The club can't exist without Abramovich agreeing to exit, or the government extending, so what football penalties the club gets is moot.
A new Chelsea could easily exist but all precedent is start at (very near) the bottom if that is the path. And the police dealing with non league would really hate that.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Great point with 3. Pretending to be busy is one of the biggest sources of stress at work - note it falls heaviest on the middle ranks because low grades are genuinely busy and high grades don't have to pretend - and it takes its greatest toll in an office as opposed to WFH.
At its worst in Japan (at least pre Covid) where you are expected to work insane hours so you get salarymen sleeping at their desks. Who benefits from that? Or they experience “karoshi” - death from overwork. If you have a word for “death from overwork” then something is wrong
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
A friend of mine lives a gorgeous Oxon village that does have a pub and a shop.
However, the shop is very often closed and the pub shuts on... Saturday afternoons. Exactly when you want it to be open.
I find the whole "pop in the car" to do or buy sodding anything completely depressing and boring. A sink of time.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
Exactly.
It is worth remembering that NATO was designed and implemented as the reverse of the Iron Curtain style stuff. Membership is voluntary - no one really even argued when the French semi-left, back in the day.
The "requirements" for spending are promises that aren't even in the "pinkie promise" range, diplomatically.
Even the "requirement" to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members is vague to the point that you could quite honestly claim that sending a diplomatic note was enough.
It is this total flexibility and lack of enforcement that is actually NATO's strength.
It's an odd beast, isn't it. I deduce that in practice (as opposed to theory) America have the sole veto over who joins since it's their umbrella that members seek to shelter under. And America will exercise their veto if they answer 'yes' and 'no' respectively to the following questions - Is this applicant at all likely to be attacked by Russia at some point? If it is, are we up for risking nuclear war to defend them?
Er - anyone can veto new members. It requires complete unanimity to join.
Which is why Turkey did some horse trading to get some nice stuff in return for their grumbles.
In theory, yes, but I bet in practice it's America who have the sole *real* veto. Doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
Why doesn't it make sense to you?
The assumption that it must be a US Empire is very Russian thinking.
The fact that America *lends* nuclear weapons to other countries - what do you make of that?
That it's US dominated is very 'Correct' thinking. It's not the whole truth but it's true enough.
I'll QED it.
Consider the much weaker argument made by Europhobes that the EU is dominated by Germany - or in the lingo a "German scam to rule the continent with export prowess via an undervalued currency'. Now consider the % of NATO military spending/functionality that America represents cf the % of European GDP that Germany represents.
So if that Europhobe argument has even a scintilla of truth - which it does - it follows that 'NATO = USA' has rather more.
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
And about 10 million more who go "Get in Boris!"
I doubt it, maybe a few Spurs fans. A lot of mild dislike for Chelsea elsewhere, but not enough to want them to go bust. Relegated sure. Football fans generally don't even want direct rivals to go bust.
Great to see Finland and Sweden both formally confirming applications to join NATO.
In four months the Great Russian Bear has been humiliated by Slava Ukraini, pushed back first from Kyiv and then from Kherson and seen two nations famous for neutrality for decades now aligning with NATO.
And now NATO are talking openly about the possibility of Ukraine winning the war. If they do, they should join NATO themselves.
What a catastrophic humiliating screw up by Putin.
An admission that his reason for the special military operation was bollocks from the start.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1526175012096548864 Putin today: NATO expansion is artificial. Russia has no problems with Finland and Sweden, so their entry into NATO does not pose an immediate threat. Russia's response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO will depend on the expansion of the alliance's infrastructure...
Also an admission that despite all his bellicose rhetoric about NATO expansion, the defanged Russian bear has been revealed to be utterly impotent and can't do anything about expansion. While they're comprehensively failing in a war with Ukraine, they're not going to open a second front in Finland.
Now is the perfect cover for any Eastern European nations who aren't under the umbrella of NATO protection to take the opportunity to do so, fast.
There are no European Countries left who would want to be in NATO - Serbia definitely wouldn't, Bosnia probably not. Austria is neutral by treaty, Switzerland relies on he fact that you'd have to fight all the way though NATO to get to them....
A Belarus that has overthrown its dictator and seen what happened to Ukraine might....
Moldova might be getting jittery over its neutrality stance as well.
I think it was the Finnish President when discussing neutrality who pointed out that since Russia started demanding people not be able to do things, like join NATO, then that would make it no longer their choice to not be in it, and thus not really neutrality anymore.
Russia's diplomatic hysteria and trash talking seems to have made Putin feel like a big man, but made it clear neutrality may not really be neutrality anymore, it was bowing to Russian demands, and the invasion showed the potential cost of that.
That’s a very astute point by the Finnish PM. Basically Putin said Choose us or them?
President, not PM (though she probably said something similar). Fortunately they are easy to tell apart, I hate identikit politicians.
She looks like Arwen after she's been on a six week elf bender Which given her naughtiness during covid I suspect is true true true
I liked the story of her getting in a little trouble because she went out clubbing during Covid. Not because I think it is an issue that she is young enough to still be interested in going clubbing, all the merrier I say, but because she said she'd left her work phone at home when doing so - perhaps I ask too much of heads of government, but I'd hope they were contactable at all hours if necessary. At the least it shows a firm commitment in FInland to work life balance.
She's a Tory. A foxy, clubby, slightly fey, party Tory
You could have stopped after the first sentence, you already won a lot of people over after three words.
Except for the fact that those words are untrue.
She'd obviously be a Tory here because she's a lockdown party girl.
If she were Labour, she would have just briefly paused from work for a reasonably necessary beer.
Final reflection on the North Rhine-Westphalia election yesterday.
The polls once again under estimated the CDU vote and over estimated the SPD vote - the former won by nine points (36-27). Unfortunately for the CDU, their progress was more than off set by the FDP's reverse which meant the administration's majority was lost.
The two governing options look to be CDU-Green and SPD-Green-FDP (both of which would have majorities in the Landtag).
This result has implications for the Federal coalition as well - the Greens are doing very well and their hawkish stance on the Ukraine has clearly played well. The SPD are weakened by Scholz's less than assertive stance while Lindner's FDP are paying the price for the economic consequences and some policy misjudgements on how to respond.
The dynamic within the governing coalition is moving to the Greens and it's not inconceivable they, rather than the SPD, will be the main challengers to the CDU/CSU by the time of the next Federal election.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
A friend of mine lives a gorgeous Oxon village that does have a pub and a shop.
However, the shop is very often closed and the pub shuts on... Saturday afternoons. Exactly when you want it to be open.
I find the whole "pop in the car" to do or buy sodding anything completely depressing and boring. A sink of time.
Shutting a pub on a weekend afternoon doesn't seem like a very bright business idea.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
I'd go Ripon, Ely, Durham, Southwell, Bury St Edmunds, Wells, and I'd accept Truro or Chichester as I have run out at 6.
I did, however, do a tour of 39 out of 42 some years ago in 6 weeks taken off, so I have visited nearly all the cities.
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
Many people who live in towns and cities yearn for rural life. Hence programmes like 'Escape to the Country'. But those people are at least a little mistaken about Country Life. What they yearn for is the picture perfect villages they visit on a Sunday, possibly at the end of a long walk. Possibly a village in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales or the Costwolds. A village which, due the presence of people like them, has pubs and coffee shops and cafes out of all proportion to its size. But most villages aren't like that. Most villages are small and unremarkable and dead. They might have a pub, and it might be a good pub, but it probably isn't. They might have a cafe, but it probably doesn't open very often. They might have a shop, and it might be a lovely little community owned thing where you can buy fudge and artisan coffee and vegetables at three times supermarket prices; or it may be a Happy Shopper in which nothing has changed since the 1970s. And even in the good villages, living there is very different from visiting them for the afternoon or the weekend.
I idealise the Lake District. I've whiled away man a happy hour thinking how nice it would be to live there. But even so, there are only two or three places in the Lake District I'd actually like to live: the towns. And they are only liveable because tourism gives them far more vitality than most towns of their size.
There is a third option we are all forgetting, which is suburbia.
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Great point with 3. Pretending to be busy is one of the biggest sources of stress at work - note it falls heaviest on the middle ranks because low grades are genuinely busy and high grades don't have to pretend - and it takes its greatest toll in an office as opposed to WFH.
In a previous job, I soon learned that doing my work quickly and asking for more work was not rewarded with a pay rise, promotion, or even extra responsibilities. I was simply handed the very worst projects of my very slowest colleagues in order to "free them up to work on their important projects", which were invariably worse than the ones I was being given.
After a few months, I stopped asking for extra work. Then they introduced timesheets, ostensibly to keep track of what everyone was doing, but all this really did was give people unfeasibly long amounts of times to complete simple tasks. One time, I was given two days to complete a job that consisted of cutting and pasting some text from one word document into another. It took me less than an hour. I took the two days allocated.
A lunchtime pint or three was essential. Even then. The boredom - I still remember it now.
There was simply no incentive to work hard, and hardly any incentive to work at all. If I was still working that job, hell yes I would want to WFH every day.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
A friend of mine lives a gorgeous Oxon village that does have a pub and a shop.
However, the shop is very often closed and the pub shuts on... Saturday afternoons. Exactly when you want it to be open.
I find the whole "pop in the car" to do or buy sodding anything completely depressing and boring. A sink of time.
Yes, exactly. For the very same reason I find some aspects of the American life-style dispiriting, despite the wealth
Getting in a car all the time. What if you don’t like driving, you want a drink, you just want to walk
Of course the electric self drive car will solve a lot of this. IF and when they arrive they will be a huge revolution, and change the way we live everywhere. As big as the move from the horse to internal combustion
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
Lol. I am not one for boasting about my earnings, but I think you would have to sell a lot more of your trashy novels to come close. The prob with your very medieval mindset is that you think the world is very simplisticThis is because you are actually rather disappointed with your life, hence all the boasting. A classic psychological indicator of dissatisfaction. There will be some people who live in villages who are as small minded as you. Indeed many voted Brexit, just like you. There are others who choose to live like that because an English village is the epitome of class and beauty. Somewhat better than living in some noisy shitty little flat in Clapham.
Mate, I’m literally sitting here drinking a beer looking at this BECAUSE IT’S MY JOB
Am I “rather disappointed with my life”? I suppose it’s possible. And I am I unself-aware? However I then wonder what kind of amazing life I would have to lead for me to be content with it. A life full of intergalactic time travel?
You over analyse. I’m just an enthusiast - and a show off, and an exhibitionist
I used to travel a lot for my work. Got pretty fecking tedious after a while, so you have my sympathy. Some people used to think it was glamourous, and I used to send my friends pics in lovely places, and they used to think "we don't really care". Bit like when you post your pics on here.
There’s “travelling for work” which - for most people - means flying into a town, staying in a pleasant hotel and doing a load of meetings then flying out again, with maybe a couple of hours to explore and a nice dinner
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
I do try to dislike you, but you do make it difficult sometimes!
Seems Abramovich is ready to see Chelsea go under according to the telegraph
Government will blink first. They are being unnecessarily fussy anyway, considering how much oligarch money funded them down the years they won’t give back.
I do not think they will
Why not? Football is a huge English industry, the ramifications of Chelsea bust because of government fussyness is huge ramifications for government, for one thing it will throw unnecessary attention on the governments own pre war oligarch funding, they would be daft to get people all emotional and invite that attention wouldn’t they?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
I don't think your response is logically coherent. Football is indeed a huge English industry and that's why the government should hold firm, because Chelsea is just one of the top clubs among a number of other top clubs. It can risk pissing off Chelsea fans precisely because the top league would still be huge without them, if it came to that.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
If Chelsea went bust I would expect an increase of somewhere between 100k-300k who would not vote Tory again in the next 10-20 years. Abramovich will be doing a similar calculation. Stalemate and endless extensions until the war is over is possibly the only plausible path.
A substantial points deduction this season so they can't qualify for any European competition but don't get relegated would seem to me to be a fair compromise.
The club can't exist without Abramovich agreeing to exit, or the government extending, so what football penalties the club gets is moot.
A new Chelsea could easily exist but all precedent is start at (very near) the bottom if that is the path. And the police dealing with non league would really hate that.
Could the government confiscate the club and then sell it on and put the money into escrow?
Mr. Dean, remote working makes it much more viable to live in remoter, more rural areas (provided there's sufficient comms infrastructure). If you demand everyone goes into an office for vague and mystical reasons then that just returns to the pattern of cramming people into and near cities.
The internet might yet be the first thing in history that (through success rather than collapse) leads to cities diminishing and villages proliferating. But it needs remote working to happen.
Who wants to live in a fucking village? Inbred nerds
Anyone who wants to keep away from towny twats like yourself.
If the peak of your ambition in life is to live in, and work in, a village, then you have the mindset of a medieval peasant and you should get the equivalent wage
Indeed, I am pretty sure this is what will happen. People who WFH will end up earning less and less, because they are demonstrably less efficient, until the inferior wages and opportunities are such a deterrent they go back to the office for most of the week
Only really senior people will get the option to WFH at full salary. A perk and an incentive
I'm all for getting people back to the office, but I am amused at the idea a preference for 'village life', whatever that means, is akin to being a medieval peasant. I think far fewer would yearn for village life if it was in any way alike that of a medieval village!
I live in a settlement of 9,000 people. Always some debate whether that is a town or a village. I mostly WFH (1 day a week in the office at the moment). The "village" has a full size Tesco, a leisure centre with a swimming pool and 2 High Schools (it's West Scotland of course). Hardly the peasant life.
9000 inhabitants is not a “village” by any standard. Who the heck calls that a village?!
I am right how sitting in a Greek village having a beer. This is what a village looks like
About 30 houses. Maybe 100 inhabitants. Two tavernas and a church
I recall at school discussion of how to define villages, towns, cities etc, and different countries doing so differently. On the basis of judging them by amenity provision it was pointed out it could be argued a Norwegian 'town' might be 200 people, while some 'villages' in poorer areas of the Africa say could be tens of thousands. That would be a pretty ridiculous approach in fairness.
I think up to a couple of thousand can generally get classed as a 'large village' in this country (if not too dense, eg a massive new settlement on the edge of a larger town) - often it is a historic core village identity, and then larger areas of modern development which call themselves part of the village as it is less council tax. There are certainly parishes which have upwards of 7k people in them, across a number of settlements perhaps, which I'd argue is really stretching it.
Generally in most Western countries a city is usually over 100,000 people, a small city or large town is 50 to 100,000, a small town is under 50,000 people and in the UK a village is under 10,000 people and a hamlet under 1,000 people
I don't think that's right in the UK. A city is a city of the queen says it is and a town is a town if the queen says it is. Villages and hamlets ISTR depend on the presence of a church, though few people will slap you down too furiously for getting it wrong.
A city in the UK tends to have a cathedral but the vast majority of cathedral cities have over 50,000 people anyway except for a few in Wales.
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
I make it 7 English cathedral cities with populations under 50,000 fwiw
Ooh, let's have a go: Ripon, Ely, Truro, Durham, Hereford... Chichester? Chester? By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
Quite a good list of some of the nicest places to live in the UK. Look for a small cathedral city…
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
A friend of mine lives a gorgeous Oxon village that does have a pub and a shop.
However, the shop is very often closed and the pub shuts on... Saturday afternoons. Exactly when you want it to be open.
I find the whole "pop in the car" to do or buy sodding anything completely depressing and boring. A sink of time.
Shutting a pub on a weekend afternoon doesn't seem like a very bright business idea.
Indeed. The barminess is as bizarre as it is inconvenient.
Comments
I have recently had Covid. I had 2 tests, both negative, when I was really quite ill and presumably infectious. As I got better I got a positive test which turned negative again only 5 days later. Only 1 experience but we should have realised that test and trace was never going to work 18 months before we did.
Cutting civil servants in areas with backlogs is obviously silly though.
@IanDunt
·
5h
Nothing cheers me up like reports of Russian military defeat.
If you could bottle the way it makes me feel, Priti Patel would ban it.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt
Then there’s “getting paid to have holidays in extraordinary places” which is somewhat different?
But I’ll stop now in case I come across as boastful. And I’d hate that
I’m glad for you that you’ve made a lot of money, and I only hope you enjoy it!
But keep up the good work any vote against Johnson is good with me.
I wonder if she does Secret Sanna at Christmas?
The underlying problem is that the Government appears to be trying to win back core votes simply by slagging off the civil service. I simply don't believe that Johnson (or Rees-Mogg) have enough insight into the detailed work done by the civil service to form a sound judgment on whether their individual jobs are best done in the office. Nor is it particularly good management to muse publcly that you're thinking of getting rid of a fifth of your workforce, without actually intiating the process of consultation and redundancy.
- get up at 445am for an early flight
- go from Heathrow to Helsinki
- spend four hours in meetings (where all I was expected to do was take notes)
- fly back
- spend plane journey writing up notes
- get back home at 10pm
- go to the pub with my housemates
- 11:14pm, receive text that I need to be in Stockholm the next day.
- Regret pub visit
Repeat
Lots of stories of fish and chip shops having to close, why is that, the oil crisis?
What should we be stocking up with in our freezers and spare bedroom? What will go sky high so better to stash and store now to avoid costs? What will get rationed first to prevent banditry, or we won’t be able to get for months?
Crisps?
Frozen fries and chips?
Wasn’t there a moment in first lockdown flour cost more than cocaine?
Barely any hamlets have a church and many villages no longer have a pub, active church or even a shop and primary school. Churches are often shared with other parishes or have services only once a month and village schoolchildren often have a fair drive to go to school
For most people outside of central london, or the tiny few enjoying village life, life is largely the purpose built housing estate, the identikit streets, the endless ring roads, the drive to the out of town tescos.
When we speak of WFH, most aren't thinking about swapping inner city urban life for bucolic bliss, they're thinking about more time spent in their rabbit hutch three bedroom new build on the outskirts of town.
So we can assume if the majority of WFHers aren't swapping inner city life for village life, their reasons for WFH from dreary old suburbia are as follows.
1 - The person wants to spend more time at home with family / pets.
2 - The person hates office life / the commute, usually the former. They hate their co-workers, office gossip, being forced to sing "happy birthday" to some 50 year old colleague in accounts whose name they can't remember, etc. And would prefer to WFH to cut out the whole dreary saga and get on with their job.
3 - Their job, like most office jobs I've ever had, require about two hours worth of work per day, but their jobs require them to sit at their desks for 8 and pretend to look busy, lest their line manager feel the need to hand them some pointless busywork. They have therefore concluded that they can do exactly the same amount of work as they were doing in the office, but have an extra 6 hours to watch tv, play x box, work out, etc. This is not a problem with the worker - it is a problem with the job.
My guess is that most jobs are a combination of the above.
Over 10,000 is my benchmark for a town, over 100,000 is definitely a city but with some smaller cities 50 to 100,000
The assumption that it must be a US Empire is very Russian thinking.
The fact that America *lends* nuclear weapons to other countries - what do you make of that?
Abramovich is right to suspect government have to blink first.
Tomorrow afternoon: Working from ECML
Other railway lines are also available.
And Chelsea are one club and the premiership will be huge with or without Chelsea
Perhaps the govt can do some kind of deal with FA and Premier League to let new Chelsea 2022 Ltd straight back to the top but that is very different to how other smaller clubs have been treated.
Otherwise going to be a lot of disgruntled Chelsea fans, and it does not matter much to Abramovich if they blame him, whereas it will do to the Tories.
I should be smiling by the end of this evening though 😸
I couldn't figure it out but PB's a bit like that these days. Did they want an extra 91,000 needing the food banks?
This is the telegraph article but it is behind the paywalll
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/05/16/whitehall-insiders-believe-roman-abramovich-could-let-chelsea/
Or fudge. They cannot publicly concede to Abramovich but perhaps they can claim victory with the monies being held by some charity in the Caymans with unlisted directors or whatever in a way that satisfies Abramovich.
I'm sure the government will blink first, but I think they could tough it out.
It's not some uncertain debate, we know cities don't require a specific scale, although most as you note will be above a certain level (much to the chagrin of those who are left out, like Reading, who I believe put up 'city centre' signs regardless).
Chichester? Chester?
By hamlets and villages depend on the presence of a church, I meant villages have one (or did once) and hamlets don't. I think the definitions are fairly nebulous but inasmuch as one exists it's something along those lines.
But there is still a difference between your premise that the government 'have' to blink first, and my thinking merely that they will blink first without having to.
Your premise rests on the idea the government position is weak and they have little choice. But my premise is their position is stronger than that, they have choice, they just won't exercise it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Finland
Some tasks are better done in solitude, others in company.
It really ought to be blindingly obvious by now to anyone with even the most meagre self-management skills which tasks fall into which category.
I wanted to join this debate earlier and the irony I've not been able to because I've been working hard at home isn't entirely lost on me.
This isn't really about Working At or From Home (WFH) any more. Individuals and companies have been able to work it out for themselves and there's no one size fits all. A lot depends on the prevailing company culture, what the company does and the demographic of its work force.
None of that matters - as long as there is no coercion either way (ideally and of course an employee has the right to leave if they feel the "rules" of their company are too strict or don't work for them as an individual), it doesn't really matter.
Part of "being in the office" now (I'd argue) is not to do the routine transactional work but to do that networking or collaborative activity that undoubtedly benefits from people being together. That in turn means changing the office itself from the banks of desks to more open spaces so that it's far less about how we work than where we work.
Many organisations have been moving away from the traditional working environment to something different for years before the pandemic - more open spaces, network and collaborative areas, bigger and more diverse meeting spaces.
Yet, as I say, it's not even about any of this.
It's about a Conservative Prime Minister telling people what to do, how to do it and where to do it. His is a somewhat unusual situation - it's not so much that he works at home but he lives in the office.
The "bully pulpit" (to coin a phrase) sounds odd from a man who waxes lyrical about freedom and "setting people free". This is where I struggle with Johnson - he has a vision for Britain but he cannot articulate it because, like so much else about him, it comes replete with its own contradictions. He wants to set us free yet at the same time he wants to be in control and to be seen to have that control.
Conservatives used to believe in freedom of choice, the right of individuals, companies and institutions to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those - his pronouncements on home working mark him not as a Conservative (for all his rhetoric) but as a statist social democrat - more David Owen than Margaret Thatcher.
@HYUFD posted eloquently on how most villages are bereft of pubs, shops, cafes, anything - which is why a life in one would be anathema - for me. Because you end up spending half your life in a car, out of necessity. You have to drive for EVERYTHING
One of the main advantages of life in central-ish London is the ability to walk almost anywhere, and, failing that, there is good public transport
In January, Putin goes to the Oracle of Delphi. He asks her: "If I invade Ukraine, what will happen?"
The Oracle replies: "If you invade Ukraine, Ukraine will become as neutral as Finland!"
Boris, no, no, NO! That would not be a good idea.....
A new Chelsea could easily exist but all precedent is start at (very near) the bottom if that is the path. And the police dealing with non league would really hate that.
However, the shop is very often closed and the pub shuts on... Saturday afternoons. Exactly when you want it to be open.
I find the whole "pop in the car" to do or buy sodding anything completely depressing and boring. A sink of time.
I'll QED it.
Consider the much weaker argument made by Europhobes that the EU is dominated by Germany - or in the lingo a "German scam to rule the continent with export prowess via an undervalued currency'. Now consider the % of NATO military spending/functionality that America represents cf the % of European GDP that Germany represents.
So if that Europhobe argument has even a scintilla of truth - which it does - it follows that 'NATO = USA' has rather more.
If she were Labour, she would have just briefly paused from work for a reasonably necessary beer.
The polls once again under estimated the CDU vote and over estimated the SPD vote - the former won by nine points (36-27). Unfortunately for the CDU, their progress was more than off set by the FDP's reverse which meant the administration's majority was lost.
The two governing options look to be CDU-Green and SPD-Green-FDP (both of which would have majorities in the Landtag).
This result has implications for the Federal coalition as well - the Greens are doing very well and their hawkish stance on the Ukraine has clearly played well. The SPD are weakened by Scholz's less than assertive stance while Lindner's FDP are paying the price for the economic consequences and some policy misjudgements on how to respond.
The dynamic within the governing coalition is moving to the Greens and it's not inconceivable they, rather than the SPD, will be the main challengers to the CDU/CSU by the time of the next Federal election.
I did, however, do a tour of 39 out of 42 some years ago in 6 weeks taken off, so I have visited nearly all the cities.
After a few months, I stopped asking for extra work. Then they introduced timesheets, ostensibly to keep track of what everyone was doing, but all this really did was give people unfeasibly long amounts of times to complete simple tasks. One time, I was given two days to complete a job that consisted of cutting and pasting some text from one word document into another. It took me less than an hour. I took the two days allocated.
A lunchtime pint or three was essential. Even then. The boredom - I still remember it now.
There was simply no incentive to work hard, and hardly any incentive to work at all. If I was still working that job, hell yes I would want to WFH every day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61467164
Getting in a car all the time. What if you don’t like driving, you want a drink, you just want to walk
Of course the electric self drive car will solve a lot of this. IF and when they arrive they will be a huge revolution, and change the way we live everywhere. As big as the move from the horse to internal combustion