Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Tories go on the offensive in T&H – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Aslan said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    In my experience, opponents of WFH are the ones that insist on complete working in office without any evidence base.
    WFH is a disaster for any companies dealing with those companies WFH. Local Authorities have gone from blue chip companies to companies you do not want to deal with. We used to get paid in 2 weeks, now it takes 6 months. As Elon Musk says Those who oppose should go ‘pretend to work somewhere else’
    As I said downthread, WFH is only an issue if you are a shit company that doesn't measure work done any other way than hours in the office. Unfortunately, that is exactly what local authorities (and much of the public sector) are.

    The other bit I should have added is accountability for not doing as much work as expected for the role. Again, a major issue in the public sector.
    Its a horrible nightmare, the change in the way LAs and other public sector bodies now work is staggering. You cannot speak to anyone, they do not reply to emails, and they certainly don't pay for services received. It has to stop soon.
    That has been the way in many local authorities for years.
    Seriously it does not compare, you could ring the Finance Dept and speak to someone, now you can't, you are asked to email which they then ignore.

    Council procedures used to be followed, they no longer are, and because no one is following them, nobody cares.

    We work with a Housing Association who are all still WFH, they have 112 outstanding invoices from us which they have failed to pay for no reason. Astonishingly they have requested a teams meeting with us to complain that we have been chasing for the money!!

    The whole change in attitude caused by WFH is scary.
    It's a bit like Agile - some organisations have no clue what WFH is or how to do it. So they do what they think is WTH. And screw it up completely.

    WFH isn't just end everyone home with a computer. If that is all you do, then disaster will probably result.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,935

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    edited June 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I think it would need multiple Cabinet resignations. Not sure there are enough spines to go round.

    2 would be enough. Rishi and Truss or Javid would do it
    Yes. Agree. Any 2 with a support base in the party. One looks like self promotion/coup, 2 is fatal.
    No it isn't, as yesterday showed the rebels still lack the numbers to oust him, Boris will never resign so without that nothing they can do
    And when the grey suits are closing in you can hug your knees in to your chest and say 'there aren't the numbers, there aren't the numbers' all day if you like, it wont save Boris.

    He would not survuive a double big beast resignation
    Yes he would, he is as stubborn as Trump. The grey suits mean nothing unless they have the majority of party MPs at least and probably most party members behind them now.

    The days of the Magic Circle are long gone
    If (for example) Truss and Javid quit simultaneously theyd take several with them and he'd no longer have the numbers, its a simple 32 MP swing to Bojexit. Much of his 211 is contingent on a functioning givernment that backs him, cabinet ministers have a personal following in the party etc.
    The grey suits will be there long after Boris is a footnote
    They don't have that many followers and neither will quit anyway unless the membership clearly swings against Boris as they are future leadership contenders who need the majority of members to back them in the membership vote to win.

    The grey suits influence declined once all MPs had a say on the leadership and effectively died off completely once the members got the final say on the leadership election. IDS or Boris would never have won the leadership if left to the grey suits
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,325

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    The Times
    @thetimes
    ·
    3m
    🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Conservative rebels are determined to change the party’s leadership rules and force another vote on Boris Johnson’s leadership within months

    They can say what they want but they didn't have the numbers to oust Boris yesterday and without a majority of the Parliamentary party they cannot change the 1922 cttee rules either
    They might after they get smashed in the bi-elections.
    Wouldn't a bi-election be a little discriminatory? What about elections for gay, straight, lesbian, trans, plus people?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Leon said:

    The Times
    @thetimes
    ·
    3m
    🔺 EXCLUSIVE: Conservative rebels are determined to change the party’s leadership rules and force another vote on Boris Johnson’s leadership within months

    That has been mentioned as a possibility on here. Would it not be subject to some sort of legal challenge? Boris could surely take it to the European Court of Human Rights.
    It isn't a judiciable issue. The problem is that the rebels don't have a majority, as demonstrated yesterday.

    It only takes a simple majority to change the rules, but if the rebels has a simple majority Boris would already be on his way out.
    I believe that the rules can be changed by the Executive Committee of the 1922 - which has 18 members.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I think it would need multiple Cabinet resignations. Not sure there are enough spines to go round.

    2 would be enough. Rishi and Truss or Javid would do it
    Yes. Agree. Any 2 with a support base in the party. One looks like self promotion/coup, 2 is fatal.
    No it isn't, as yesterday showed the rebels still lack the numbers to oust him, Boris will never resign so without that nothing they can do
    And when the grey suits are closing in you can hug your knees in to your chest and say 'there aren't the numbers, there aren't the numbers' all day if you like, it wont save Boris.

    He would not survuive a double big beast resignation
    Yes he would, he is as stubborn as Trump. The grey suits mean nothing unless they have the majority of party MPs at least and probably most party members behind them now.

    The days of the Magic Circle are long gone
    If (for example) Truss and Javid quit simultaneously theyd take several with them and he'd no longer have the numbers, its a simple 32 MP swing to Bojexit. Much of his 211 is contingent on a functioning givernment that backs him, cabinet ministers have a personal following in the party etc.
    The grey suits will be there long after Boris is a footnote
    I'm not too sure whether I'm being pedantic or whether there's a numerical equivalent, but I understand the PM voted, and, one might reasonably assume, for himself. That means that he had 210 'supporters'.
    I do agree that he's stubborn as Trump, but I don't think he's evil enough to try to hang on by force. Even if he could find the soldiery.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,011
    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    I think ir depends on the organisation, the job, the current part of the job, the team etc.

    For example, at the moment, they team I am in is WFH apart from 1 day a week. The team has been together for years, and we are working on pieces of a long running project. Even there, for some things, we have found it better to meet up.

    Meanwhile the grads are all in the office, trying to network furiously.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 550

    It isn't a judiciable issue. The problem is that the rebels don't have a majority, as demonstrated yesterday.

    It only takes a simple majority to change the rules, but if the rebels has a simple majority Boris would already be on his way out.

    Agreed. The significance of the rules being changeable is not today, but that if in five or six months time the situation has changed such that many of the MPs who yesterday voted approval change their minds, MPs are not going to sit around saying "well, 75% of us now want shot of him but our hands are tied until June 2023".
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,719

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    In what sense would that be within their powers? The power of parliament to legislate by due process (a process which could SFAICS expel anyone, once enacted, just as they have the power in that way to ban the consumption of potatoes) does not given them arbitrary powers just by coming to a debating decision.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    I think ir depends on the organisation, the job, the current part of the job, the team etc.

    For example, at the moment, they team I am in is WFH apart from 1 day a week. The team has been together for years, and we are working on pieces of a long running project. Even there, for some things, we have found it better to meet up.

    Meanwhile the grads are all in the office, trying to network furiously.
    And thus the Malmsbury spaceship and widget business will prosper!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    That would set a pretty dangerous precedent.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    I do wonder how many people who regularly post on here are WFH? I can confess that I am such, though I am only accountable to myself and my accountant.
    Yes I do wonder that also. I'm retired and previous to that I worked for myself and only part time, but I spend too much time here and I post a lot less than most. How someone like @hyufd does it I don't know.

    How do you manage it @hyufd?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,325
    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    On the face of it you are right in principle that it would be perfectly democratic, as no-one, except his own constituents, technically votes for Boris Johnson. However, though the Speaker has the power to suspend an MP, I do not think he/she can expel, so primary legislation would have to be passed which would not be given government time by the executive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,935
    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    @IanB2 - you're playing with fire if you start tagging my posts as Off Topic

    :fearful:
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,305
    algarkirk said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    In what sense would that be within their powers? The power of parliament to legislate by due process (a process which could SFAICS expel anyone, once enacted, just as they have the power in that way to ban the consumption of potatoes) does not given them arbitrary powers just by coming to a debating decision.

    Could they not pass a law making it illegal for the current member for Uxbridge to serve as an MP? That would be scary though - similar to something Boris's more fervent supporters might come up with themselves.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    Nigelb said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    That would set a pretty dangerous precedent.
    Yes, you don't excise demons by becoming one
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,935
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    Like almost any change, there will be benefits and costs, winners and losers.

    But we'll be able to find out soon enough: do businesses that allow widespread WFH perform less well than those who do not.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I think it would need multiple Cabinet resignations. Not sure there are enough spines to go round.

    2 would be enough. Rishi and Truss or Javid would do it
    Yes. Agree. Any 2 with a support base in the party. One looks like self promotion/coup, 2 is fatal.
    No it isn't, as yesterday showed the rebels still lack the numbers to oust him, Boris will never resign so without that nothing they can do
    Vote with the opposition in a VONC in the House of Commons. Shit or bust.
    Then many of them lose their seats anyway, especially in Remain seats and the Tory Party left in the Commons is even more hard Brexit and rightwing
    ... but would not be in a position of power anymore, so who cares?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    Like almost any change, there will be benefits and costs, winners and losers.

    But we'll be able to find out soon enough: do businesses that allow widespread WFH perform less well than those who do not.
    Exactly. And if they do, they will go to the wall. Natural selection.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    I think ir depends on the organisation, the job, the current part of the job, the team etc.

    For example, at the moment, they team I am in is WFH apart from 1 day a week. The team has been together for years, and we are working on pieces of a long running project. Even there, for some things, we have found it better to meet up.

    Meanwhile the grads are all in the office, trying to network furiously.
    And thus the Malmsbury spaceship and widget business will prosper!
    You mean the cover for the planned insurrection and my installation as UnDictator?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,935
    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,325
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    @IanB2 - you're playing with fire if you start tagging my posts as Off Topic

    :fearful:
    Hmmm, tempting.............
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,797

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    MPs would all be terrified of the precedent.

    I just had a vision of the Commons after every lying MP was expelled - empty and with the tumbleweed bumping slowly across the floor.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    On the face of it you are right in principle that it would be perfectly democratic, as no-one, except his own constituents, technically votes for Boris Johnson. However, though the Speaker has the power to suspend an MP, I do not think he/she can expel, so primary legislation would have to be passed which would not be given government time by the executive.
    Could they not vote to suspend sine die?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Nigelb said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    That would set a pretty dangerous precedent.
    Yes, you don't excise demons by becoming one

    Those who advocate expelling MPs on parliamentary votes, should -

    - consider that in a number of countries round the world, MPs are given legal immunity.
    - the history behind that.
    - the sad state of affairs that said immunity can lead to.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    @IanB2 - you're playing with fire if you start tagging my posts as Off Topic

    :fearful:
    Hmmm, tempting.............
    I had the same thought.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,325
    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    I do wonder how many people who regularly post on here are WFH? I can confess that I am such, though I am only accountable to myself and my accountant.
    Yes I do wonder that also. I'm retired and previous to that I worked for myself and only part time, but I spend too much time here and I post a lot less than most. How someone like @hyufd does it I don't know.

    How do you manage it @hyufd?
    He does the lucrative dinner party circuit as a highly believable double of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf . I am sure CCHQ probably pay him per post too
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,659
    Personally I think WFH is going to be big and businesses are going to adopt it in a big way.

    The supposed downsides on productivity are difficult to measure.
    The upsides (larger talent pool, lower office costs, employees save on commute time and money) are easy to measure.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited June 2022

    algarkirk said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    In what sense would that be within their powers? The power of parliament to legislate by due process (a process which could SFAICS expel anyone, once enacted, just as they have the power in that way to ban the consumption of potatoes) does not given them arbitrary powers just by coming to a debating decision.

    Could they not pass a law making it illegal for the current member for Uxbridge to serve as an MP? That would be scary though - similar to something Boris's more fervent supporters might come up with themselves.
    I mean, no. Thats not how a democracy acts. It might even have popular support. Less so when the majority vote to ban SKS from being an MP because 'curry', even less do when anyone standing against whomever has the votes is 'disqualified'
    Its MAD once you abuse the House in that way
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,400
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    Something that I think gets overlooked is the element of privacy.

    When I worked in an office where more or less everyone had an office (usually shared between two or three people, working on a project), there was a convival atmosphere, people would drop in to each other's offices for a cuppa (or something stronger. But you would be around your team and chatting, gossiping, sharing information.

    When I worked in an open plan office, everyone sat in silence with noise cancelling headphones on and I thought I'd stumbled into a library or something. Nobody talked at all.

    So in a sense apps like teams get people talking to each other again, but there are other fixes to that problem. Like ending open plan offices.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    Anyone got a pixel 6? Decent?

    Might wait for the 6a, prefer smaller phones.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,549
    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Fishing said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    MPs would all be terrified of the precedent.

    I just had a vision of the Commons after every lying MP was expelled - empty and with the tumbleweed bumping slowly across the floor.
    "You are no Parliament; I say you are no Parliament; begone, and give place to honester men"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    @IanB2 - you're playing with fire if you start tagging my posts as Off Topic

    :fearful:
    I'm sure it was just a fat finger like. :smile:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,950
    It's a near complete Conservative vote strike that will finish off Boris, together with an alternative lead who exhibits competence and no inkling he/she will betray Brexit.

    That will emerge within the next year. When, I don't know.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,325

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    On the face of it you are right in principle that it would be perfectly democratic, as no-one, except his own constituents, technically votes for Boris Johnson. However, though the Speaker has the power to suspend an MP, I do not think he/she can expel, so primary legislation would have to be passed which would not be given government time by the executive.
    Could they not vote to suspend sine die?
    Sounds appealing, but probably not, regrettably
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    edited June 2022
    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    I do wonder how many people who regularly post on here are WFH? I can confess that I am such, though I am only accountable to myself and my accountant.
    Yes I do wonder that also. I'm retired and previous to that I worked for myself and only part time, but I spend too much time here and I post a lot less than most. How someone like @hyufd does it I don't know.

    How do you manage it @hyufd?
    As I mainly WFH now, I don't post during work meetings and I still get the work I need to do each week done as I have more flexible hours not just 9 to 5pm and while checking those I manage are on top of the day to day customer work they do too
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    I'll stick to my guns in that I think it's a big negative. I'm very happy to learn that you, and others, don't think so though, and as with all negatives I hope I'm wrong.



    I think ir depends on the organisation, the job, the current part of the job, the team etc.

    For example, at the moment, they team I am in is WFH apart from 1 day a week. The team has been together for years, and we are working on pieces of a long running project. Even there, for some things, we have found it better to meet up.

    Meanwhile the grads are all in the office, trying to network furiously.
    And thus the Malmsbury spaceship and widget business will prosper!
    You mean the cover for the planned insurrection and my installation as UnDictator?
    I think it's clear that sugesting such a thing is the best disguise for it being real. I look forwards to my villa and remunerations as minor functionary first-class.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,950
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    @IanB2 - you're playing with fire if you start tagging my posts as Off Topic

    :fearful:
    He does that as a substitute for a dislike button.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    Something that I think gets overlooked is the element of privacy.

    When I worked in an office where more or less everyone had an office (usually shared between two or three people, working on a project), there was a convival atmosphere, people would drop in to each other's offices for a cuppa (or something stronger. But you would be around your team and chatting, gossiping, sharing information.

    When I worked in an open plan office, everyone sat in silence with noise cancelling headphones on and I thought I'd stumbled into a library or something. Nobody talked at all.

    So in a sense apps like teams get people talking to each other again, but there are other fixes to that problem. Like ending open plan offices.
    The totally open plan offices were considered a failure for just that reason - hence breaking up the "field" with breakout rooms, meeting rooms, kitchen spaces etc.

    I think that one factor in WFH that hasn't received due attention is that the level of working from home may well need to change over the lifecycle of projects and teams.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    I was being rather tongue in cheek and yes, I think it would set a terrible precedent.

    But I genuinely wonder what is to stop it happening. Is there anything in our constitution that prevents it? (If not, maybe our constitution is not worth the paper it's not written on!)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,126
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    I'm not sure it would be overreach. The Commons used to use impeachment quite often, and there was a time when Bills of Attainder were popular.

    I could envisage extreme circumstances where it would be warranted, but I'd think you'd want to be reluctant to do so, and you'd want a proper process around it. So there's no reason to pre-empt the existing Privileges Committee process.

    If the Tory rebels really want rid of Johnson they can vote with the Opposition on a Commons vote of no confidence - but that would mean splitting the Tories as they'd have no chance of persuading the Boris loyalists to support their candidate for PM after doing so.

    I do sometimes wish the party system wasn't so strong that you could envisage that scenario actually happening.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    I do wonder how many people who regularly post on here are WFH? I can confess that I am such, though I am only accountable to myself and my accountant.
    Yes I do wonder that also. I'm retired and previous to that I worked for myself and only part time, but I spend too much time here and I post a lot less than most. How someone like @hyufd does it I don't know.

    How do you manage it @hyufd?
    As I mainly WFH now, I don't post during work meetings and I still get the work I need to do each week done as I have more flexible hours not just 9 to 5pm and while checking those I manage are on top of the day to day customer work they do too
    Are you using a dictation facility? Serious question.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    I was being rather tongue in cheek and yes, I think it would set a terrible precedent.

    But I genuinely wonder what is to stop it happening. Is there anything in our constitution that prevents it? (If not, maybe our constitution is not worth the paper it's not written on!)
    Constitutions don't protect democracy. Belief in democracy protects democracy.

    At best, a constitution is a speed bump. It can just be a fig leaf. During the Goode Olde Days of the USSR, their constitution was full of rights and protections for individuals......
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Nigelb said:
    Nothing new, surely the England test team have been deliberately getting out quickly for many years now?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited June 2022
    Election Maps suggesting if Redfields red wall polling goes well they are planning blue wall polling too
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,400

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Supporters of WFH have an almost religious-like devotion to the cause and are often incredulous that anyone could possibly have a different opinion to them on the subject.
    It doesn't suit some. But to claim that it is 'a huge threat to any nation that embraces it' as Omnium did really is utter rubbish.
    Just suppose though it was a 10% drag. Then it would be a huge threat. Are you entirely sure it's not?

    A 10% drag in general? I can see if for some jobs, but in general? I highly doubt it.

    Don't forget that people are also getting 15% of their day back in not spending time commuting, and a further 2-3% as they won't need to spend so much time on personal hygiene.

    From my perspective (as an entrepreneur) it's complicated. Some people are highly motivated, and we get both more hours and more focused hours. Others - particularly those who lack motivation or who are less confident in their skills - struggle more. We also find that bringing junior employees up to speed on the code base takes longer.

    But in general, I'd say WFH (for a tech company like us) is a mild positive - we don't have to hire people just in Los Angeles, which increases the labour pool. And people seem to really enjoy the meetups - although the ample quantities of alcohol may play a role.
    Something that I think gets overlooked is the element of privacy.

    When I worked in an office where more or less everyone had an office (usually shared between two or three people, working on a project), there was a convival atmosphere, people would drop in to each other's offices for a cuppa (or something stronger. But you would be around your team and chatting, gossiping, sharing information.

    When I worked in an open plan office, everyone sat in silence with noise cancelling headphones on and I thought I'd stumbled into a library or something. Nobody talked at all.

    So in a sense apps like teams get people talking to each other again, but there are other fixes to that problem. Like ending open plan offices.
    The totally open plan offices were considered a failure for just that reason - hence breaking up the "field" with breakout rooms, meeting rooms, kitchen spaces etc.

    I think that one factor in WFH that hasn't received due attention is that the level of working from home may well need to change over the lifecycle of projects and teams.
    Yeah, worked in a few places like that. The breakout spaces rarely worked, because they didn't afford the right level of privacy, weren't comfortable for a long enough period of time, got dominated by one or two people, etc.

    Fundamentally the problem is you used to have to like what you were given as an office environment or lump it.

    Now office spaces have competition. Working from home.

    Many people it seems enjoy working from home. I'd say that's partially down to the commute, but it's also a human need to have a bit of your own space with a working door you can close behind you when you need privacy.

    It seems to me like a return to people actually having their own offices (offices of 3-4 people max, all doing similar things/working on same project) would afford people a better office environment, while still allowing people to mix between offices, have those unexpected corridor chats, provide mentoring for junior staff, prevent lack of work life balance burnout, etc.

    So for me the answer isn't WFH. It's making the office experience more like the WFH experience.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    I don't understand the "culture war" over WFH, other than the older generation don't have the imagination to understand how it can possibly work and therefore assume it must be a skive.

    I couldn't give a toss about Pret (their lobbying is good, isn't it?) but do care for local pubs and shops. I'm happy with hybrid and flexible working, and it's the way the world is going so it needs to be shaped not resisted.

    The only thing that worries me is the sustainability of our rail network but you can't force people onto trains.

    I suspect they will need to be near wholly digitised in future with smart asset management (removing as much manpower as possible) and some trimbacks of services to bring back into balance.

    I agree. Also, those “opposed” to WFH are rather missing the point that you can’t beat the market.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 787
    edited June 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Anyone got a pixel 6? Decent?

    Might wait for the 6a, prefer smaller phones.

    Pixel 6 Pro here. Love it, but I've had Pixels since the Pixel 2 so was to be expected. My friend has the standard Pixel 6 and it's probably not worth the upgrade to the Pro, it just looks a bit flashier and has slightly better internals but it's the same size.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    I was being rather tongue in cheek and yes, I think it would set a terrible precedent.

    But I genuinely wonder what is to stop it happening. Is there anything in our constitution that prevents it? (If not, maybe our constitution is not worth the paper it's not written on!)
    Constitutions don't protect democracy. Belief in democracy protects democracy.

    At best, a constitution is a speed bump. It can just be a fig leaf. During the Goode Olde Days of the USSR, their constitution was full of rights and protections for individuals......
    Similar In the DDR, where every pupil of a specific age was given a hardback copy of the constitution. It wasn't a bad constitution and the government were right to be proud of it. It's just a shame that it was completely 100% ignored by the establishment.

    Constitutions can protect democracy, but they need to be properly implemented by an independent court (the US supreme court is not fully independent) and and can be slowly amended so that they don't get fixed in a system no longer appropriate for the times.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    Nigelb said:

    I see HYUFD believes that ordinary folk read election leaflets. Door to bin, unexamined, is the normal course of things.
    They might notice whom it's from and get mildly irritated. If you're lucky.

    Indeed. Just a waste of trees. I'd prefer we didn't have them at all – in my case everything goes straight in the recycling.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,126
    eristdoof said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    I was being rather tongue in cheek and yes, I think it would set a terrible precedent.

    But I genuinely wonder what is to stop it happening. Is there anything in our constitution that prevents it? (If not, maybe our constitution is not worth the paper it's not written on!)
    Constitutions don't protect democracy. Belief in democracy protects democracy.

    At best, a constitution is a speed bump. It can just be a fig leaf. During the Goode Olde Days of the USSR, their constitution was full of rights and protections for individuals......
    Similar In the DDR, where every pupil of a specific age was given a hardback copy of the constitution. It wasn't a bad constitution and the government were right to be proud of it. It's just a shame that it was completely 100% ignored by the establishment.

    Constitutions can protect democracy, but they need to be properly implemented by an independent court (the US supreme court is not fully independent) and and can be slowly amended so that they don't get fixed in a system no longer appropriate for the times.
    Constitutions were important in the 19th century as they represented a break from the personal rule of absolute monarchs. So they were certainly worth fighting for at the time.

    Anti-democratic forces are different now. So constitutions are less useful.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480
    rkrkrk said:

    Personally I think WFH is going to be big and businesses are going to adopt it in a big way.

    The supposed downsides on productivity are difficult to measure.
    The upsides (larger talent pool, lower office costs, employees save on commute time and money) are easy to measure.

    I think for disabled people with mobility issues WFH opportunities is huge - a definite upside.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,126
    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    He at least had the good sense not to be confident in that prediction. This means it will be worth listening to his explanation of why it was wrong.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    Boris will definitely be gone by the end of the year; my track record on predictions for the year ensures it:

    Benpointer's New Year's Day predictions for 2022:
    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election.
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue.
    9. Bitcoin to collapse.
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.


  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,548
    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I think it would need multiple Cabinet resignations. Not sure there are enough spines to go round.

    2 would be enough. Rishi and Truss or Javid would do it
    Yes. Agree. Any 2 with a support base in the party. One looks like self promotion/coup, 2 is fatal.
    No it isn't, as yesterday showed the rebels still lack the numbers to oust him, Boris will never resign so without that nothing they can do
    And when the grey suits are closing in you can hug your knees in to your chest and say 'there aren't the numbers, there aren't the numbers' all day if you like, it wont save Boris.

    He would not survuive a double big beast resignation
    Yes he would, he is as stubborn as Trump. The grey suits mean nothing unless they have the majority of party MPs at least and probably most party members behind them now.

    The days of the Magic Circle are long gone
    If (for example) Truss and Javid quit simultaneously theyd take several with them and he'd no longer have the numbers, its a simple 32 MP swing to Bojexit. Much of his 211 is contingent on a functioning givernment that backs him, cabinet ministers have a personal following in the party etc.
    The grey suits will be there long after Boris is a footnote
    They don't have that many followers and neither will quit anyway unless the membership clearly swings against Boris as they are future leadership contenders who need the majority of members to back them in the membership vote to win.

    The grey suits influence declined once all MPs had a say on the leadership and effectively died off completely once the members got the final say on the leadership election. IDS or Boris would never have won the leadership if left to the grey suits
    ".... neither will quit anyway unless the membership clearly swings against Boris ...." hasn't the Conservative party already "swung against Boris", just not "clearly" enough to convince those cabinet ministers closest to the PM?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    He has such a blind hatred of Boris and Brexit that he can’t analyse anything to do with them rationally. There’s a lot of that about.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    So what’s the next plot twist? Starmer and Rayner fined before the end of the week? Another Boris investigation into a previously unknown event?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    He has such a blind hatred of Boris and Brexit that he can’t analyse anything to do with them rationally. There’s a lot of that about.
    I did wonder if that was playing a part. His Strasbourg psychosis is quite bad
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,366

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    I predicted 217 to 142, and my Dad went with 209 to 150. So it wasn't that difficult to get it in the right area.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 270

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,011
    edited June 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    It depends, I think. I agree it would be wrong for members of parliament to eject elected representatives arbitrarily. Part of the problem with the UK Constitution is governments making it up as they go along. Holding referendums when they feel like it, abolishing local governments run by people they disapprove of etc.

    But if it is part of a due process, bearing in mind this is for a gross infraction of parliamentary behaviour, I think expulsion on member vote could be appropriate.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Andy_JS said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    I predicted 217 to 142, and my Dad went with 209 to 150. So it wasn't that difficult to get it in the right area.
    That’s impressive. Well done
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,482
    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,400
    PJH said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
    Or have an office with a door you can shut when you're on a call. Just like the old days.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,103

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    I don't feel strongly about this, as I wouldn't with, say, student discounts - and they're a private organisation, they can do what they like - but aren't the over 60s the richest cohort of society?
    I'm all in favour of free buses for pensioners, OTOH. The buses would be running anyway, and it makes sense as an incentive to spread people out in this way. And it also, sadly, makes sense to make pensioners less dependent on driving.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    PJH said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
    Fair point. I stay away from offices most of the time anyway so that form of disruption is not really a factor for me. Indeed one of the criteria I have used for picking jobs over the last decade is the ability to pick where, when and how I work.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,366
    "Conservative rebels are determined to change the party’s leadership rules and force another vote on Boris Johnson’s leadership within months.

    Leading figures among the 148 MPs who voted for a new leader last night said they did not believe that the prime minister should be afforded the usual year-long period of immunity from another challenge." (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-no-confidence-vote-tory-mps-live-p5s2v8jxd
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,988
    biggles said:

    So what’s the next plot twist? Starmer and Rayner fined before the end of the week? Another Boris investigation into a previously unknown event?

    I think Starmer & Rayner will at least get a telling off from the police and will have to apologise.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,126

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
  • PJHPJH Posts: 270
    kyf_100 said:

    PJH said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
    Or have an office with a door you can shut when you're on a call. Just like the old days.
    Very old days. Last (and only) time I had one of those was in 1991.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
  • HYUFD is paid to post here
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,103

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    I predicted 40% - which would have been 144. But I bet on 150-200, because the odds looked more attractive.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    Actually that's a good point. What if the Tory rebels introduced a motion that "This House does not have Confidence in the PM and desires to elect a new one from its ranks"?

    The Opposition parties would presumably support the motion.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,610
    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    Cookie said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    I don't feel strongly about this, as I wouldn't with, say, student discounts - and they're a private organisation, they can do what they like - but aren't the over 60s the richest cohort of society?
    I'm all in favour of free buses for pensioners, OTOH. The buses would be running anyway, and it makes sense as an incentive to spread people out in this way. And it also, sadly, makes sense to make pensioners less dependent on driving.
    I assume they know their market. In the case of B&Q pensioners might be more likely to be doing gardening or minor DIY stuff so it makes sense for a business to butter them up. I don't get the envy that seems to underlie the original posting. If someone is getting a break and I am not then good luck to them. Equalising things so that someone else is worse off than they were but we all get the same seems the height of selfishness to me.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,366
    edited June 2022
    I wonder whether there's a new Roundhead/Cavalier split emerging amongst Tory MPs, with Roundheads more likely to support Jeremy Hunt and Cavaliers Johnson. Most of the Jeremy Hunt supporters seem to conform to a particular type: tall, thin, slightly haughty, privately educated, believe that experts know best, think the lockdown should have been more draconian, etc.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,482
    Leon said:

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
    It was bloody obvious by last week that there would be a VONC.

    I assumed he would win it reasonably well (ie less than 100 against) but when I saw the Norman letter I knew he was fucked even I as understood rationally that an actual loss was surely too high a barrier for the rebels.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,495

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    Your dad's in a small minority.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    This is just the politics of envy.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,935
    Leon said:

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
    Agreed.

    I called it very wrong.
This discussion has been closed.