Thank goodness we are back to normal tomorrow. CoL has not gone away
The CoL is a very boring crisis. That's not to deny its importance. But philosophically "shit, gas has gone up fourteen-fold, rendering it and everything it is used for" us not particularly philosophically interesting, and neither if the short term answers - "suck it up" or "whack it on the credit card ajd let the kids pay for it" are particularly satisfying. (The long term answers, mind, about how we move away from reliance on fossil fuels and the maniacs who sell them, is both interesting and satisfying.) And the news from Ukraine is almost all awful, even if notably less awful than when it appeared Ukraine would be overrun and enslaved. I must admit I have rather enjoyed the philosphical musings on the nature of Britishness, identity and sovereignty of the ladt ten days, along with the human drama of The Queue. I have surprised myself. I wouldn't want to keep it up for ever - ten days or so is about right - but in pure news terms it has been a welcome diversion. I'm surprised at myself here. Royal weddings are shit. But it turns out royal funerals are brilliant.
It has been a welcome diversion in that sense yes, we return to the fetid toilet bowl am morgen. Back to the i reckon, you reckon and the nonsense of polls, PMQs et al Most of all its back to the sham breathless earnestness of them all. The offence taken, the deliberate content ripping of every word said, the misrepresentation of everything for polling advantage. Yay!
No PMQs for a while
Liz is up the road on Wed. Isn't it Therese and Angela?
No - it is the swearing of allegiance by mps to the King
No PMQS until after conferences
Wasn't JRM meant to do a big announcement filling in details on the energy plan?
Though this piece in tomorrow's (?) Times gives the impression that the details.may be trickier than was implied earlier.
People familiar with the talks say some executives have been alarmed by ministers pushing to introduce such contracts before winter and fear this could inflict huge losses on those that have already hedged some of their power output for coming months below market prices.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
They were deliberately provocative. Sheeple isn't an insult to the individuals doing a commute to a fixed point - its an observation of behaviour. Our society literally herds people like sheep into city centres to do the same tasks the same way then back out again of an evening. People are largely unthinking about this - like sheep being herded - because it is just what people are expected to do.
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
I had some sympathy until i got to his job title .
Mind, it did affect all travellers - almost no trains still today. There's obviously been some very serious damage to the overhead wires. They seem to be keeping quiet about what caused it.
There wasn't any extreme weather that day, was there?
The length seems to imply that the damage was possibly caused by a train - a dodgy pantograph or something. One would need to know how long each bit of wire is before one can assess the chance that a material or installation defect would cause it. Either way, it sounds like a pretty big bill heading for someone.
(Though I'm not sure why all four lines were pretty much closed. Perhaps that is for repair access, and/or the train crossed more than one line when it came onto the main line? And of course some electric trains just stopped and blocked their lines when the juice went.)
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Who will be Wat Tyler to lead the WFH peasant's revolt?
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Who will be Wat Tyler to lead the WFH peasant's revolt?
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Labour are not keen on it either though. Too many of their voters work in industries dependent on office culture, e.g. youngsters, transport workers, public sector frontline staff.
About the only government group in favour of it are mid- and lower-level civil servants who don't have long commutes every day as a result of it, but their views won't count against managers and politicians like that slob Rees-Mogg.
I think their problem will be that eventually people will simply vote with their feet and it will happen whether they like it or not. But that will be a messier and more painful transition than it needs to be if they were proactive.
The government trying to stop it reminds me of Edward III trying to regulate feudal wages back to pre-plague levels in the aftermath of the Black Death.
He failed. Market forces were too strong.
Who will be Wat Tyler to lead the WFH peasant's revolt?
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
They were deliberately provocative. Sheeple isn't an insult to the individuals doing a commute to a fixed point - its an observation of behaviour. Our society literally herds people like sheep into city centres to do the same tasks the same way then back out again of an evening. People are largely unthinking about this - like sheep being herded - because it is just what people are expected to do.
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
Oh come off it: "sheeple" is absolutely an insult - and coming from a lefty who has flexibility in where he works.
Here's a question that I have no answer to, but would be interesting to see approximate guesstimates at: what proportion of jobs could be done at home full-time (aside from (say) weekly get-together meetings? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Covid figures are not necessarily a good approximate, as much economic activity was paused at that time. One construction project in our village was paused for over six months, half-complete.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
Without seeing the arrangements to determine who was where, it seems plausible that row 14 was both correct and/or a horrific snub. If its commonwealth first then tough, should have thought about it before throwing all that tea in the bay. If its alphabet based then change the name to America, United States of.
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
It's certainly a remarkable change of tune from Ms Truss after the last, what is it, 5-6 years. Could be very damaging for her with the Party.
Is it?
There's a difference between talking about the likelihood of trade deals in general, or with the USA in particular.
Liam Fox as Trade Secretary didn't bother signing the trade deals that Liz Truss made, or those she got started working on which are coming down the tracks, but instead spent years banging on about a trade deal with the USA.
One reason I respect her a lot is she's been working on free trade deals and has made a lot of noise about potential trade deals with the CPTPP and others. She's not been talking about a trade deal with the USA.
The reality is that no trade deal is getting through the US Senate anyway. Its not happening, but free trade is good and there's many alternatives to America.
For different reasons, the world's two biggest economic areas are now off the table; and the government is actively preparing to bin the one we have with the third biggest.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
They were deliberately provocative. Sheeple isn't an insult to the individuals doing a commute to a fixed point - its an observation of behaviour. Our society literally herds people like sheep into city centres to do the same tasks the same way then back out again of an evening. People are largely unthinking about this - like sheep being herded - because it is just what people are expected to do.
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
Oh come off it: "sheeple" is absolutely an insult - and coming from a lefty who has flexibility in where he works.
Here's a question that I have no answer to, but would be interesting to see approximate guesstimates at: what proportion of jobs could be done at home full-time (aside from (say) weekly get-together meetings? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Covid figures are not necessarily a good approximate, as much economic activity was paused at that time. One construction project in our village was paused for over six months, half-complete.
Having spent 3 years of my life as an obedient sheeple I don't see it as an insult. It is people herded like sheep for the advancement of the people doing the herding.
And "full time" is a BR-esque straw man. All hybrid jobs will involve some office working - team meetings, process meetings etc where the face to face interaction is needed. What has changed is that many of these can be done remotely by routine and face to face by exception, and other tasks can be done anywhere.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
For those employees a decent employer could introduce other perks, flexible working or compressed hours for example. It’s lazy and disingenuous not to allow some staff benefits just because not everyone can have them. If you’re going to make that argument at least follow the logic and advocate that the CEO has the same employment terms as the janitor or the receptionist.
Sometimes I get the impression this site is *far* too middle-class, with even the "up the workers!" lefties having f-all idea about the working class. Vast tranches of workers cannot work from home - from supermarket workers to builders. And lots of 'office' workers cannot realistically work from home either, especially if they interact with the public.
I'm all for flexible working hours - but even then there are large numbers of jobs where that is not applicable.
True, though those jobs are fairly well dispersed round the country anyway.
One of the UK's problems is that our prosperity depends too much on highly-paid jobs that are tied to being in London. WFH might allow those to be done in other places, which can do a lot for levelling up.
And yes, it's unfair, but that unfairness is there already. Have you seen what these people get in pay and perks?
"Might allow"
Yeah, might. For vast tranches of jobs, it does not. Before Covid, Mrs J was working from home one day a week. She worked from home five days a week during Covid, but has gone back to the office for three days a week.
Why? Because even though it's mostly a sit-at-a-desk-and-design job, there is some lab work that needs to be done, and that is *highly* inefficient when done through third parties in the lab (it is far easier to just go down to the lab and diy).
In addition, WfH stopped a certain amount of team dynamics: decisions always seemed to take longer when down over Skype/Teams etc.
Also, she can just walk across the office and collar someone about a problem, rather than email them and hope they're available to Sype. Then there's the sociability aspects as well.
So the WfH revolution has seen her change her habits from working from home one day a week to two days a week. And if it wasn't such a long commute, she probably would not WfH at all...
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
The only way Trump would have been given a seat at the front is if he'd been a ritual sacrifice to be buried with the Queen.
And I'm thinking she would have refused his company for all eternity. Even worse than Witchell.
Nicholas Witchell was(is?) a strange one. Is he not still Royal Correspondent for the BBC? Yet that cannot be his only gainful employment as he is hardly ever on it. Did he retire?
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
They could also have used A330MRTT or A400M. I suspect they used C-17 because it's very big and impressive looking and does not necessitate the indignity of putting the Gruz 200 on a forklift or ULD loader.
Work from home is entirely a matter for employers and employees, isn't it? if employers do not want to offer it, employees will either accept that or look elsewhere.
"A man who was invited to the Queen's funeral has missed the service because of rail disruption.
Barry Boffy MBE, from Bristol, said "events conspired against me" after his train was stopped near Slough.
The former British Transport Police employee eventually got to London but was then turned around by police who said he would not make it in time.
Before setting off Mr Boffy had said: "These kind of things [the invitation] don't happen to people like me."
The former British Transport Police head of inclusion and diversity was due to attend the state funeral after being awarded an MBE in this year's Queens Birthday Honours."
I had some sympathy until i got to his job title .
Mind, it did affect all travellers - almost no trains still today. There's obviously been some very serious damage to the overhead wires. They seem to be keeping quiet about what caused it.
There wasn't any extreme weather that day, was there?
Nope but 2 miles of cable was damaged with no explanation provided.
Possible causes are however numerous and a quick check in multiple places shows that no-one is gossiping that much.
The overhead cables there are however an old design and that could be a large part of both the issue and why it's taking so long to resolve things - the fact trains are incapacitated so can't be move probably doesn't help either...
Mr. Tubbs, alphabetical order is not always wise for seating international leaders. You'd have Iran and Iraq next to each other, and Israel not far away...
Edited extra bit: and yes, I did rip this off from Bernard/Sir Humphrey.
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
They could also have used A330MRTT or A400M. I suspect they used C-17 because it's very big and impressive looking and does not necessitate the indignity of putting the Gruz 200 on a forklift or ULD loader.
The A400M does have a ramp at the back for ro-ro, but it has propellers so probably looked too primitive.
That would be impressive, given that only 5.4 billion people on the planet have access to a television. Nearly 19 in 20 of all people, in every country (including those in very different timezones), who could possibly have seen it did see it.
I think you're right that it's quite an exaggeration
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
She's going to get many deals, just probably not with the USA given the USA has been turning against free trade for years now.
Sensible Brexiteers who believe in free trade have said a lot more about the potential of CPTPP and other potential deals than the USA anyway, in no small part because of this.
A friend of mine was a customs officer. He was put in charge of a new role looking out for tropical plants and animals. He was given an MBE for services to wildlife. He hated the job.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
They were deliberately provocative. Sheeple isn't an insult to the individuals doing a commute to a fixed point - its an observation of behaviour. Our society literally herds people like sheep into city centres to do the same tasks the same way then back out again of an evening. People are largely unthinking about this - like sheep being herded - because it is just what people are expected to do.
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
Oh come off it: "sheeple" is absolutely an insult - and coming from a lefty who has flexibility in where he works.
Here's a question that I have no answer to, but would be interesting to see approximate guesstimates at: what proportion of jobs could be done at home full-time (aside from (say) weekly get-together meetings? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Covid figures are not necessarily a good approximate, as much economic activity was paused at that time. One construction project in our village was paused for over six months, half-complete.
Having spent 3 years of my life as an obedient sheeple I don't see it as an insult. It is people herded like sheep for the advancement of the people doing the herding.
And "full time" is a BR-esque straw man. All hybrid jobs will involve some office working - team meetings, process meetings etc where the face to face interaction is needed. What has changed is that many of these can be done remotely by routine and face to face by exception, and other tasks can be done anywhere.
I can't recall having seen 'sheeple' not used as an insult. It drips off the tongues of people who think they're different and *above* the hordes. It's hilarious to see you use it.
Again, your example is a very middle-class one. Any job that requires equipment that cannot be provided in the home - e.g. machinists - will not be able to be done from home. Or a vast range of other jobs - many of which provide you with the capability of WfH.
Work from home is entirely a matter for employers and employees, isn't it? if employers do not want to offer it, employees will either accept that or look elsewhere.
And vice versa. We’re hiring people that are fed up with 100% remote. If you’re single, it’s lonely.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
They could also have used A330MRTT or A400M. I suspect they used C-17 because it's very big and impressive looking and does not necessitate the indignity of putting the Gruz 200 on a forklift or ULD loader.
The A400M does have a ramp at the back for ro-ro, but it has propellers so probably looked too primitive.
Work from home is entirely a matter for employers and employees, isn't it? if employers do not want to offer it, employees will either accept that or look elsewhere.
And vice versa. We’re hiring people that are fed up with 100% remote. If you’re single, it’s lonely.
Yep - we offer hybrid as an option for a number of roles (not for sales), but a lot of the younger staff members like to be in the office.
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
They could also have used A330MRTT or A400M. I suspect they used C-17 because it's very big and impressive looking and does not necessitate the indignity of putting the Gruz 200 on a forklift or ULD loader.
The A400M does have a ramp at the back for ro-ro, but it has propellers so probably looked too primitive.
Edit: Also EU origin.
Should have used a trebuchet.
Not trying to deny the efficiency of turboprops, of course: just thinking of the general look to the uninformed!
Work from home is entirely a matter for employers and employees, isn't it? if employers do not want to offer it, employees will either accept that or look elsewhere.
Yes. It will work brilliantly for some businesses and poorly for others. The variable factor that's hard to map is the quality of managers. If an individual manager is a micro-managing tyrant then there will be no flexibility. If they trust the teams they have built there can be a lot of flexibility.
Ultimately this should be win-win. Companies can have smaller offices with smaller overhead costs, with their employees happy to pick up a slightly higher energy bill by spending less time and money commuting. Government need provide less infrastructure around transporting people to and fro, which frees up cash for other needs.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Sure. I spotted the risk on the day. It was bad optics to make POTUS wait. It was avoidable. Truss could have greeted him. But nonetheless it’s depressingly predictable that Trump is low enough to make political capital out of a damn funeral. They need to get rid somehow.
Why they used the plane they did to bring HMQ to Northolt. Including a great comment from her.
the C17 was quieter and was, sadly, very familiar with the repatriation role from undertaking the repatriation of service personnel who had died in Afghanistan”.
“A dress rehearsal at RAF Northolt provided that it would work, but the impact of changing from a smart-looking business jet to a more utilitarian C17 was fairly significant, and so approval from the Palace for the change to our plans was sought.”
“The response that came back from HM The Queen was: ‘If it’s good enough for my boys, then it’s good enough for me”.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
The only way Trump would have been given a seat at the front is if he'd been a ritual sacrifice to be buried with the Queen.
And I'm thinking she would have refused his company for all eternity. Even worse than Witchell.
Nicholas Witchell was(is?) a strange one. Is he not still Royal Correspondent for the BBC? Yet that cannot be his only gainful employment as he is hardly ever on it. Did he retire?
I think I heard him referred to as former royal correspondent, so presumably he participated in a kind of emeritus role yesterday? I thought he did an alright job, this was the gig he has been preparing for all his life and his normally gratingly obsequious tone hit the right note for once.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Sure. I spotted the risk on the day. It was bad optics to make POTUS wait. It was avoidable. Truss could have greeted him. But nonetheless it’s depressingly predictable that Trump is low enough to make political capital out of a damn funeral. They need to get rid somehow.
OTOH bad optics to give the Prez special treatment - or rather, even more special treatment, in such a visible and disruptive way. He (or his staff) had already insisted on driving around in his APC-lite, very publicly, hence the delay in the first place.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
They were deliberately provocative. Sheeple isn't an insult to the individuals doing a commute to a fixed point - its an observation of behaviour. Our society literally herds people like sheep into city centres to do the same tasks the same way then back out again of an evening. People are largely unthinking about this - like sheep being herded - because it is just what people are expected to do.
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
Oh come off it: "sheeple" is absolutely an insult - and coming from a lefty who has flexibility in where he works.
Here's a question that I have no answer to, but would be interesting to see approximate guesstimates at: what proportion of jobs could be done at home full-time (aside from (say) weekly get-together meetings? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Covid figures are not necessarily a good approximate, as much economic activity was paused at that time. One construction project in our village was paused for over six months, half-complete.
Having spent 3 years of my life as an obedient sheeple I don't see it as an insult. It is people herded like sheep for the advancement of the people doing the herding.
And "full time" is a BR-esque straw man. All hybrid jobs will involve some office working - team meetings, process meetings etc where the face to face interaction is needed. What has changed is that many of these can be done remotely by routine and face to face by exception, and other tasks can be done anywhere.
I can't recall having seen 'sheeple' not used as an insult. It drips off the tongues of people who think they're different and *above* the hordes. It's hilarious to see you use it.
Again, your example is a very middle-class one. Any job that requires equipment that cannot be provided in the home - e.g. machinists - will not be able to be done from home. Or a vast range of other jobs - many of which provide you with the capability of WfH.
Its an insult to myself then as I have said I was - and considered at the time - that we were all being herded. And I've already made the white collar / blue collar distinction. Here's the thing though - two big questions that need to really be considered before you just dismiss the hybrid (not WFH) working revolution.
One - not all jobs can be done on a hybrid basis. Should we therefore ban / block hybrid working for jobs where it can be done because it is "unfair" on the people who can't benefit? Does sound like luddism.
Two - the threat to blue collar jobs from multiple sources remains. We made political choices in the 1980s to stop protecting industry from market forces and have seen large chunks of it shut down. That process is ongoing as more jobs can be automated and run remotely - same "threat" as hybrid working - in a cheaper location. Retail and hospitality jobs increasingly automated. Even in-person health services get replaced by remote phone numbers. So this is happening whether you like it or not.
The political question is whether we accept this and shape it to benefit society, or stand against it and have harsher effects devastate chunks of our society. Again.
On the topic of next president I know there's been a queen's funeral and all on that has been a bit distracting but have people been paying attention to PB-favourite Ron DeSantis's "hilarious" PR stunt where he organised the kidnapping of 48 people and transported them across state lines?
I'm sure this is playing well with the MAGA base but the story is not necessarily developing to his (or Greg Abbot's) advantage.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Sure. I spotted the risk on the day. It was bad optics to make POTUS wait. It was avoidable. Truss could have greeted him. But nonetheless it’s depressingly predictable that Trump is low enough to make political capital out of a damn funeral. They need to get rid somehow.
Does @Dura_Ace undertake - ahem - contract work with his trusty Ruger 10/22?
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Technically, Trump could have been correct - (but not for the right reason) depending on when HMQEII died. If she’d died towards the end of Trump’s term he’d have been a longer serving head of state than Biden is currently so would probably have been slightly nearer the front (but still behind other royalty & the Commonwealth leaders). Biden’s seating position was simply down to how long he had been in office and had nothing to do with Liz Truss. As to being “made to wait” he was a guest who had been told to arrive by 09.55. Everyone else managed it - because they came on the buses. Biden arrived at 10.07 because the US insisted he use his own transport and didn’t factor enough time into their planning. That’s with them and only them.
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Good to see PB returning to normal. The seamless pivot late last night from the death of the monarch to the price of houses was particularly impressive. This morning we've had a smattering of Brexit; not much on the weather yet. I look forward to the return of discussion of Gordon Brown's financial rectitude (or lack of it) in due course. Welcome back, PB.
If Biden doesn't run, will it most likely be Kamala Harris?
The default replacement option of Kamala Harris is probably the reason why people are looking at Biden running again. Harris definitely isn't in a position to succeed if Trump is the opposition...
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Which is funny because Labour would have been the biggest opponents of a U.S. trade deal “animal standards, frankenfoods, hormones etc.” - but all’s fair in love, war & politics!
This is another house in Finland. 200 sqm, built in the 1980's and extended in 2002. Surveyors report says it is in good condition. Includes an external sauna and a swimming pool. Half an acre plot on the edge of town. The starting price is 98,000 Euros.
Looks to be in the middle of nowhere on that map. What's an equivalent place in the UK?
Its in Humppila, a village with a railway station and a glass factory, and a heritage railway, about 2 hours from Helsinki. There is no comparison in the UK. The point is how cheap property can get where there is unlimited land for development.
There was a nice looking house up for sale today in another part of Finland with an orchard. It had, for some technical reason, been written off by the surveyor and sold as land. 16,000 Euros was the asking price.
A few years back, I nearly bought a property in Marden, Kent.
It came with the option to buy some farmland as a package - at £6800 an acre.
Marden is an hour from Cannon Street/Charing Cross stations in London.
A property there can easily hit 7 figures - smaller would be mid to high 6 figures.
There is not going to be a US-UK trade deal. Reminder, there was never going to be such an overarching trade deal. It would, on agriculture and food, never get past the Mail, Guardian, R4, One Show, Countryfile, Telegraph, the House of Commons, the Lords, the British electorate.
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Which is funny because Labour would have been the biggest opponents of a U.S. trade deal “animal standards, frankenfoods, hormones etc.” - but all’s fair in love, war & politics!
The opposition criticises the government for failing to deliver a key policy, even though it doesn't agree with that policy in the first place. A disgrace, I tell you.
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Which is funny because Labour would have been the biggest opponents of a U.S. trade deal “animal standards, frankenfoods, hormones etc.” - but all’s fair in love, war & politics!
Whether they would have approved or not, the fact is it's a broken promised and a failed programme. That's what Labour have been emphasising and this gives them more ammunition to say the government is in chaos.
Yes, it's hypocritical. Just as it was for Brown to criticise the Major government over Black Wednesday when if he had done what he said was needed things would have been worse. Or for Cameron to criticise Brown for the regulatory failures and over borrowing that led to the banking collapses when he'd been arguing for lower taxes and lighter regulation.
But it doesn't matter. It's the government's record that ultimately matters. Remember, governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Technically, Trump could have been correct - (but not for the right reason) depending on when HMQEII died. If she’d died towards the end of Trump’s term he’d have been a longer serving head of state than Biden is currently so would probably have been slightly nearer the front (but still behind other royalty & the Commonwealth leaders). Biden’s seating position was simply down to how long he had been in office and had nothing to do with Liz Truss. As to being “made to wait” he was a guest who had been told to arrive by 09.55. Everyone else managed it - because they came on the buses. Biden arrived at 10.07 because the US insisted he use his own transport and didn’t factor enough time into their planning. That’s with them and only them.
Thank you for clearing that up. I was not aware of that protocol.
Nonetheless Trump can happily paint Row 14 as a snub, because that is what it looks like.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Sure. I spotted the risk on the day. It was bad optics to make POTUS wait. It was avoidable. Truss could have greeted him. But nonetheless it’s depressingly predictable that Trump is low enough to make political capital out of a damn funeral. They need to get rid somehow.
Does @Dura_Ace undertake - ahem - contract work with his trusty Ruger 10/22?
I've reflected overnight - not all young people have the crazy expectation that they all get to live in the top 5% of desirable areas, and rule out the rest even if they are more in line with their incomes. But the loudest ones on social media all do.
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Although someone has teed the ball up for Trump, he has smashed it down the fairway and his fans are applauding.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
Sure. I spotted the risk on the day. It was bad optics to make POTUS wait. It was avoidable. Truss could have greeted him. But nonetheless it’s depressingly predictable that Trump is low enough to make political capital out of a damn funeral. They need to get rid somehow.
Does @Dura_Ace undertake - ahem - contract work with his trusty Ruger 10/22?
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Which is funny because Labour would have been the biggest opponents of a U.S. trade deal “animal standards, frankenfoods, hormones etc.” - but all’s fair in love, war & politics!
Haven't you completely missed the wider point here?
Had Ed Miliband and Labour won the 2015 GE we wouldn't now be needing a unilateral trade deal with the US.
On topic, I don't know if Biden will run again. I, like many, assumed he'd be there for a term and then not seek the nomination, having saved the Republic from Trump. Now I'm not so sure (on either account, since Trump just won't flush).
However, regardless of what Biden eventually does, I think he has to act like he will run again. History is full of examples of lame ducks, on both sides of the Atlantic. LBJ chose not to seek renomination and spent the last bit of his term unable to do anything. Blair and Cameron both tried to get out at a time of their choosing and it rather backfired. If he wants the authority to do anything, Biden needs to pretend that he will run again.
Cameron could have stayed on - he just didn't have the cojones.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Yeah, Trump would be fucking mortified if anyone thought he was being disrespectful.
If Biden doesn't run, will it most likely be Kamala Harris?
The default replacement option of Kamala Harris is probably the reason why people are looking at Biden running again. Harris definitely isn't in a position to succeed if Trump is the opposition...
Totally agree.
We may well see Biden running because he sees no other option that has a chance against Trump.
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Labour said a trade deal with a Trump led US would be a disaster, now no trade deal with a Biden led US is a disaster too. I doubt our farmers will be complaining
The USA is our largest single trading partner and we usually sell them more than they sell us without a comprehensive trade deal. No need to worry if President Biden doesn't want to change the current arrangements. We both are full members of WTO which works.
If Biden doesn't run, will it most likely be Kamala Harris?
The default replacement option of Kamala Harris is probably the reason why people are looking at Biden running again. Harris definitely isn't in a position to succeed if Trump is the opposition...
16.0 on Harris at Smarkets is a nice price. I think she's a shoo in if Biden decides not to run (With the greatest of respect to Pete Buttigieg) as the party faithful won't rally against a sitting VP. The implied odds are also a bit long in the general. I'm long Biden generally so it's a bit of insurance.
The flags back to full mast and the online front pages shift back to usual bits n pieces of rubbish already 🤷♀️ Is that the que for proper PBer on PBer action again?
I’ll kick it off. Liz Truss at the funeral. She didn’t say much, but she delivered it in proper common Yorkshire like I would sound like. SO NOWT WRONG WITH THAT 😌
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss. The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.” https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
Which is funny because Labour would have been the biggest opponents of a U.S. trade deal “animal standards, frankenfoods, hormones etc.” - but all’s fair in love, war & politics!
Whether they would have approved or not, the fact is it's a broken promised and a failed programme. That's what Labour have been emphasising and this gives them more ammunition to say the government is in chaos.
Yes, it's hypocritical. Just as it was for Brown to criticise the Major government over Black Wednesday when if he had done what he said was needed things would have been worse. Or for Cameron to criticise Brown for the regulatory failures and over borrowing that led to the banking collapses when he'd been arguing for lower taxes and lighter regulation.
But it doesn't matter. It's the government's record that ultimately matters. Remember, governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them.
And this government are a right bunch of losers.
I don’t dispute Labour’s right to make hay with it - what I welcome is the refreshing dose of realism.
How depressingly predictable. Someone might like to signal disapproval to Trump that it is disrespectful to make political hay out of HM funeral and if he carries on down his current path he would be staying at home with Putin.
Yeah, Trump would be fucking mortified if anyone thought he was being disrespectful.
He’d have probably pushed his way through the VCs & George Cross holders, tipping over the chap in the wheelchair….
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
This would never work because houses can't be built for £50,000. The cheapest they can possibly be built and sold for is £200,000 each under current build costs. The only way houses could be £50,000 is if there is a massive collapse in demand - as is already the case in some parts of the north of England where houses can be bought for £50k in the current market.
If land was free, and builders were mass producing cookie cutter designs, would houses really cost £200k to build?
A major cost in building a house is the labour.
This then causes people who don't do analysis to invest in 3D printing concrete walls and the like. This is silly.
The issue isn't the cost of making walls. Walls are quick, simple and cheap - concrete blocks. You can even get spacers, so that the people laying the concrete blocks are muppets (not recommended). Insulation comes in boards, these days.
You can throw up an empty shell, crane some pre made roof trusses on and tile it, in a couple of days, if you have the foundation slab ready.
The real cost and time is in the plumbing, electrics etc. This is labour intensive.
Labour costs are (of course) a function of housing costs, reasonably locally. The plumber has to live somewhere.
If houses prices fell, the cost of labour would go down. Though it might be slow - wages are very sticky in the downward direction, except over longer periods of time.
Good. About time we stopped fetishising “Trade Deals” - not clear why we’d want one with the US in any case. A welcome dose of realism.
The realism is that she's not going to get a deal. Not about its lack of desirability.
It's certainly a remarkable change of tune from Ms Truss after the last, what is it, 5-6 years. Could be very damaging for her with the Party.
Is it?
There's a difference between talking about the likelihood of trade deals in general, or with the USA in particular.
Liam Fox as Trade Secretary didn't bother signing the trade deals that Liz Truss made, or those she got started working on which are coming down the tracks, but instead spent years banging on about a trade deal with the USA.
One reason I respect her a lot is she's been working on free trade deals and has made a lot of noise about potential trade deals with the CPTPP and others. She's not been talking about a trade deal with the USA.
The reality is that no trade deal is getting through the US Senate anyway. Its not happening, but free trade is good and there's many alternatives to America.
For different reasons, the world's two biggest economic areas are now off the table; and the government is actively preparing to bin the one we have with the third biggest.
If we join the CPTPP then that will be a bigger economic area than the EU itself which would be fourth not third, plus of course we still have a free trade deal with the EU too on top of that.
I don't see any reason why the government shouldn't engage in a massive housebuilding program to drive the average house value below £50,000 - the long term benefits of not having enormous amounts of wealth and effort tied up in an artificially inflated housing markets massively outweigh the short term discomfort.
As I discovered the other week, Greater (ie commutable) New York is more densely populated than Greater (commutable) London, but - outside Manhattan - prices are considerably cheaper.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
The US has far more land than the UK and is also far less densely populated overall.
In New York City most rent as most in London now rent, outside London UK average house prices are now even slightly lower than in the US, $407,600 there, £281,261 here
The USA has far more land Commutable New York does not.
Funny how the places people want to live end up with not enough land.
In a society with free movement, it seems to be hard to solve housing costs in desirable areas by building tons of houses in other areas.
Indeed, if you want to buy a home in the UK before 30 on an average income move to Bolton or Stoke or County Durham not London. If you want to buy a house in the US before 30 on an average income move to Arkansas or West Virginia or Ohio not New York city
Young people in London don't want to move to Bolton because it means sacrificing their careers, social lives, and local family support structures.
The rational solution is just to build houses and flats where people actually want to live and thus make buying a house there affordable.
I grew up in Rochdale, which is just as hellish as Bolton. But need not be. The solution to people like me heading to London to find work is have an economy which allows jobs in Rochdale.
WFH is that opportunity. Level up the ability of people to do well paid jobs rom the comfort of wherever they like, without all the faff and expense of buying/renting a shoebox for £stupid and having to spend £morestupid wedged onto a train to an office.
As this threatens Tory interests - value of shoebox flats, value of office buildings, value of shit coffee emporiums, ability to impose drudgery on the working sheeple - they are increasingly against it. Despite the obvious benefits. And in this post-covid world I honestly believe this social luddism will be one of the factors that drags them out of office.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. 'Sheeple' and 'luddism' indeed. Perhaps instead there's also a certain amount of realism that for many working-class people WfH is an impossibility.
For those employees a decent employer could introduce other perks, flexible working or compressed hours for example. It’s lazy and disingenuous not to allow some staff benefits just because not everyone can have them. If you’re going to make that argument at least follow the logic and advocate that the CEO has the same employment terms as the janitor or the receptionist.
Sometimes I get the impression this site is *far* too middle-class, with even the "up the workers!" lefties having f-all idea about the working class. Vast tranches of workers cannot work from home - from supermarket workers to builders. And lots of 'office' workers cannot realistically work from home either, especially if they interact with the public.
I'm all for flexible working hours - but even then there are large numbers of jobs where that is not applicable.
True, though those jobs are fairly well dispersed round the country anyway.
One of the UK's problems is that our prosperity depends too much on highly-paid jobs that are tied to being in London. WFH might allow those to be done in other places, which can do a lot for levelling up.
And yes, it's unfair, but that unfairness is there already. Have you seen what these people get in pay and perks?
"Might allow"
Yeah, might. For vast tranches of jobs, it does not. Before Covid, Mrs J was working from home one day a week. She worked from home five days a week during Covid, but has gone back to the office for three days a week.
Why? Because even though it's mostly a sit-at-a-desk-and-design job, there is some lab work that needs to be done, and that is *highly* inefficient when done through third parties in the lab (it is far easier to just go down to the lab and diy).
In addition, WfH stopped a certain amount of team dynamics: decisions always seemed to take longer when down over Skype/Teams etc.
Also, she can just walk across the office and collar someone about a problem, rather than email them and hope they're available to Sype. Then there's the sociability aspects as well.
So the WfH revolution has seen her change her habits from working from home one day a week to two days a week. And if it wasn't such a long commute, she probably would not WfH at all...
Oh, it certainly does allow for enough jobs to cause problems. My lovely seaside resort town now has a property market that is a total nightmare because it's flooded with people who want to WFH for a London company that pays London salaries and they maybe need to go up to London a couple of times a month.
The UK simply doesn’t build enough houses to meet demand.
The entire planning system is a disaster that encourages land hoarding and cookie-cutter developments by a oligopoly of builders.
It is probably the #1 problem holding the UK back.
Right. This is one of those areas where I think we should just start doing something on a big scale and see how much benefit we can get from that. When we've made a decent dent in the "way too little supply" problem we can look at whether there is still anything that other policy fixes might help with, but we should start with the blindingly obvious part first. (No strong view on the best way in particular to increase supply, though as you note planning overhaul is probably part of it.)
Planning overhaul is the never ending cry of the developer. All the while they are sitting on plots with permission for hundreds of thousands of houses and not developing them. Start charging them council tax on the plots 9 months or a year after planning permission has been granted and watch how quickly they are ready to start building on them.
Land Value Tax on the value of land plus permissions.
So land without permissions is much less than land with permissions. If you've got permission to build, you've got the value in the land, so that's what you should be taxed on. Also encourages development (the only tax available with a negative tax wedge)
Comments
Wouldn’t it be the “absence of a gain” not a loss?
Or they were, until Covid accelerated societal change by 10 years in a few months. Suddenly so many of these white collar jobs can be largely done from anywhere. None of it using new technology, simply adopting tech which had emerged in the years leading to Covid. We can now do most of these jobs anywhere with all the benefits that brings. Opposing this new reality is luddism - instead of throwing clogs into the machinery, our government leave "go back to your desk" instructions. Same effect.
As for blue collar jobs, they largely must be done at a location. And whilst that is in long-term decline thanks to automation, it will not go away. So we need to ensure high quality and affordable housing is available. Which we utterly fail at currently.
(Though I'm not sure why all four lines were pretty much closed. Perhaps that is for repair access, and/or the train crossed more than one line when it came onto the main line? And of course some electric trains just stopped and blocked their lines when the juice went.)
Trump "truths" how Biden and the USA was humiliated in Row 14 at Westminster Abbey, and how he, Trump would have been at the forefront.
Spectacular trolling by Team Truss or an embarrassing cock-up by organisers.
Here's a question that I have no answer to, but would be interesting to see approximate guesstimates at: what proportion of jobs could be done at home full-time (aside from (say) weekly get-together meetings? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Covid figures are not necessarily a good approximate, as much economic activity was paused at that time. One construction project in our village was paused for over six months, half-complete.
And I'm thinking she would have refused his company for all eternity. Even worse than Witchell.
And "full time" is a BR-esque straw man. All hybrid jobs will involve some office working - team meetings, process meetings etc where the face to face interaction is needed. What has changed is that many of these can be done remotely by routine and face to face by exception, and other tasks can be done anywhere.
Yeah, might. For vast tranches of jobs, it does not. Before Covid, Mrs J was working from home one day a week. She worked from home five days a week during Covid, but has gone back to the office for three days a week.
Why? Because even though it's mostly a sit-at-a-desk-and-design job, there is some lab work that needs to be done, and that is *highly* inefficient when done through third parties in the lab (it is far easier to just go down to the lab and diy).
In addition, WfH stopped a certain amount of team dynamics: decisions always seemed to take longer when down over Skype/Teams etc.
Also, she can just walk across the office and collar someone about a problem, rather than email them and hope they're available to Sype. Then there's the sociability aspects as well.
So the WfH revolution has seen her change her habits from working from home one day a week to two days a week. And if it wasn't such a long commute, she probably would not WfH at all...
Possible causes are however numerous and a quick check in multiple places shows that no-one is gossiping that much.
The overhead cables there are however an old design and that could be a large part of both the issue and why it's taking so long to resolve things - the fact trains are incapacitated so can't be move probably doesn't help either...
Mr. Tubbs, alphabetical order is not always wise for seating international leaders. You'd have Iran and Iraq next to each other, and Israel not far away...
Edited extra bit: and yes, I did rip this off from Bernard/Sir Humphrey.
Edit: Also EU origin.
After Brexit: we never wanted a US trade deal anyway
I think you're right that it's quite an exaggeration
Edit whoops attached to wrong post.
Again, your example is a very middle-class one. Any job that requires equipment that cannot be provided in the home - e.g. machinists - will not be able to be done from home. Or a vast range of other jobs - many of which provide you with the capability of WfH.
It wasn't a good look for Biden. Although he took his seat with good grace.
American right-wing cancel culture in action.
Ultimately this should be win-win. Companies can have smaller offices with smaller overhead costs, with their employees happy to pick up a slightly higher energy bill by spending less time and money commuting. Government need provide less infrastructure around transporting people to and fro, which frees up cash for other needs.
“A dress rehearsal at RAF Northolt provided that it would work, but the impact of changing from a smart-looking business jet to a more utilitarian C17 was fairly significant, and so approval from the Palace for the change to our plans was sought.”
“The response that came back from HM The Queen was: ‘If it’s good enough for my boys, then it’s good enough for me”.
One - not all jobs can be done on a hybrid basis. Should we therefore ban / block hybrid working for jobs where it can be done because it is "unfair" on the people who can't benefit? Does sound like luddism.
Two - the threat to blue collar jobs from multiple sources remains. We made political choices in the 1980s to stop protecting industry from market forces and have seen large chunks of it shut down. That process is ongoing as more jobs can be automated and run remotely - same "threat" as hybrid working - in a cheaper location. Retail and hospitality jobs increasingly automated. Even in-person health services get replaced by remote phone numbers. So this is happening whether you like it or not.
The political question is whether we accept this and shape it to benefit society, or stand against it and have harsher effects devastate chunks of our society. Again.
A shame, because when he's in full flow (as against Brown) he is quite impressive.
Doubts rise over whether DeSantis had budget authority to fly migrants
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/19/desantis-immigrants-marthas-vineyard-venezuela-00057673
“There is no doubt that the blame for this mess lies at the door of the PM…This is an embarrassment for Liz Truss.
The Conservative manifesto promised a trade deal with the United States by the end of this year, now this has no chance of being delivered.”
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1572132285863919617
This morning we've had a smattering of Brexit; not much on the weather yet.
I look forward to the return of discussion of Gordon Brown's financial rectitude (or lack of it) in due course. Welcome back, PB.
He’s since signed a proffer agreement with the DOJ and is cooperating with the US law enforcement as a witness.
Full story here:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-fbi-inquiry-over-election-bribe-in-puerto-rico-rrlrtzkjk
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20210313/281496459037436
It came with the option to buy some farmland as a package - at £6800 an acre.
Marden is an hour from Cannon Street/Charing Cross stations in London.
A property there can easily hit 7 figures - smaller would be mid to high 6 figures.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1572124323787468802
Yes, it's hypocritical. Just as it was for Brown to criticise the Major government over Black Wednesday when if he had done what he said was needed things would have been worse. Or for Cameron to criticise Brown for the regulatory failures and over borrowing that led to the banking collapses when he'd been arguing for lower taxes and lighter regulation.
But it doesn't matter. It's the government's record that ultimately matters. Remember, governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them.
And this government are a right bunch of losers.
Nonetheless Trump can happily paint Row 14 as a snub, because that is what it looks like.
Had Ed Miliband and Labour won the 2015 GE we wouldn't now be needing a unilateral trade deal with the US.
We may well see Biden running because he sees no other option that has a chance against Trump.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1572103338958950400
The implied odds are also a bit long in the general.
I'm long Biden generally so it's a bit of insurance.
I’ll kick it off. Liz Truss at the funeral. She didn’t say much, but she delivered it in proper common Yorkshire like I would sound like. SO NOWT WRONG WITH THAT 😌
been plonked in row 14
This then causes people who don't do analysis to invest in 3D printing concrete walls and the like. This is silly.
The issue isn't the cost of making walls. Walls are quick, simple and cheap - concrete blocks. You can even get spacers, so that the people laying the concrete blocks are muppets (not recommended). Insulation comes in boards, these days.
You can throw up an empty shell, crane some pre made roof trusses on and tile it, in a couple of days, if you have the foundation slab ready.
The real cost and time is in the plumbing, electrics etc. This is labour intensive.
Labour costs are (of course) a function of housing costs, reasonably locally. The plumber has to live somewhere.
If houses prices fell, the cost of labour would go down. Though it might be slow - wages are very sticky in the downward direction, except over longer periods of time.
So land without permissions is much less than land with permissions. If you've got permission to build, you've got the value in the land, so that's what you should be taxed on. Also encourages development (the only tax available with a negative tax wedge)