The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
And probably have more time for their families, and lower family breakdown and mental health stats, in the bargain.
Like many countries with lower working hours, and yet higher productivity than ours.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Not necessarily slacking. They were not working at their peak efficiency because of their workplace context. If the workplace context can be changed in a way that is productivity neutral, but people are happier, then great!
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
The other thing is its only the 4 day week that has allowed the council to actually recruit staff and I suspect the agency staff cost savings have been substantial.
The other (slightly depressing) thought that's ocurred to me...
I reckon Dave-in-opposition would have been all for this. Localities trying new ideas, getting better value (because if it improves staff retention and reduces the need for agency staff, it will be better value), wellbeing and so on.
Now the Conservative government has gone back to miserable curtain-twitching. Even if it fails, even if you think it is likely to fail, it seems worth a try, especially with one of our two great universities checking what happens. The hopeless sense that, if someone is getting a better life, it can only be because they are cheating.
Which is another way of saying that the Conservatives really need to lose the next election, because there is nothing left in the tank.
To be fair, David Cameron's Conservative Party, in Opposition, did seek to remove a lot of the measurement, monitoring and general interference from which local councils suffered in the Blair/Brown years. Nick Hurd, I think it was, came up with legislation sweeping away rafts of Government performance monitoring. As usual, the motives weren't wholly positive - the scrapping of the Audit Commission in 2015, for example, was a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The Audit Commission did a good job holding local councils and Government to account particularly in respect of fraud.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
And probably have more time for their families, and lower family breakdown and mental health stats in the bargain.
Like many other countries with lower working hours thann ours.
As I pointed out I would be well in favour of abolishing working hours in favour of this week we are paying you x and we expect you to do y for that money....takes you 1 day fine you work 1 day......takes you 5 days then takes you 5 days.
What I am not in favour of is people being paid to do work and spending time they are being paid for not doing work and doing stuff like scrolling through facebook. Especially when its me as a tax payer paying them
Have England decided arhhh f##k it, lets play T20, we are good at that.
Follow the women and make the Ashes a mixed format so that they have a chance.
IF trans athletes gave Eng the edge and the thrill of victory, WOULD this shift some opinions, on PB and beyond?
Sigh. I have nothing at all against trans people or trans athletes. I do not think that those who grew up with male levels of testosterone in their bodies should be able to compete against women but otherwise, good luck to them. And their success or otherwise on a level playing field won't change that at all.
T(w)itter Daily News @TitterDaily NEWS: Twitter's web version no longer allows users to browse without logging in. All urls redirect to the signup page.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
I’m pretty certain that gets you thrown out of chess tournaments. But then all I know of chess tournaments is from watching The Queen’s Gambit…
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too, with the single market thereby gaining two new members, and the EEA becoming an abolute powerhouse.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
I’m pretty certain that gets you thrown out of chess tournaments. But then all I know of chess tournaments is from watching The Queen’s Gambit…
There's at least one example of a tournament player managing to move a piece from an adjacent game onto their board. I'd need to find my copy of The Complete Chess Addict for details.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
Sounds like the Commie-fascist EUSSR Reich. Out out out! Make Australia grate again! Protect our boarders!
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
Canada is in the CPTPP as we now are
Though CPTPP is a much shallower deal than the Single Market. One of the reasons why the gains from being in the CPTPP are projected to be much smaller than the losses from leaving the SM.
For all Bazball seeing the team be greater than the sum of its parts over the last year, and coming up against reality a bit in this match, it's interesting to note that England actually now have an opener who averages greater than 40 after a dozen matches. That feels unusual since Cook retired.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
Canada is in the CPTPP as we now are
Though CPTPP is a much shallower deal than the Single Market. One of the reasons why the gains from being in the CPTPP are projected to be much smaller than the losses from leaving the SM.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
Sounds like the Commie-fascist EUSSR Reich. Out out out! Make Australia grate again! Protect our boarders!
Complete with lots of French in Canada.
Ah, Quebec. The Welsh of the New World. Thousands of years of Canadian history and we've always speaked English. Take your baguettes and go back to Belgium.
Er, wouldn't the Welsh of the New World be the Ottawa and other First Nations?
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
Though JRM spends a lot of his time skiving, so maybe he's just assuming that we're all like him.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
I actually think the Rees-Mogg mentality betrays a) a complete lack of insight in how stuff actually gets done and b) an inability to trust anyone.
I've seen quite a few senior managers with that mentality but, fortunately, they are a dying breed.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
Canada is in the CPTPP as we now are
Though CPTPP is a much shallower deal than the Single Market. One of the reasons why the gains from being in the CPTPP are projected to be much smaller than the losses from leaving the SM.
Time will tell but you cannot be in both
Actually, you can. However you couldn’t be in both the CPTPP and the European Customs Union.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
Sounds like the Commie-fascist EUSSR Reich. Out out out! Make Australia grate again! Protect our boarders!
Complete with lots of French in Canada.
Ah, Quebec. The Welsh of the New World. Thousands of years of Canadian history and we've always speaked English. Take your baguettes and go back to Belgium.
Er, wouldn't the Welsh of the New World be the Ottawa and other First Nations?
I dunno that's probably the Gypsies, Transsexuals, Romany, or whatever they call themselves this week.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
Sounds like the Commie-fascist EUSSR Reich. Out out out! Make Australia grate again! Protect our boarders!
Complete with lots of French in Canada.
Ah, Quebec. The Welsh of the New World. Thousands of years of Canadian history and we've always speaked English. Take your baguettes and go back to Belgium.
We visited Quebec on a coach tour from New York with mainly Americans and were booked into a French restaurant
The restaurant required French to be spoken if you wanted to order a meal which wasn't a problem for us as we could get by in French, but watching all the Americans leaving was hilarious but no doubt not to them
Today's the day Elon put the final nail in the Twitter coffin.
Isn't the problem still that there's no up and running mass alternative that's any good? He does seem to be testing how much aggravation people will put up with.
Then again, we must never forget he wanted to back out of buying twitter in the first place - he did not want to be running it, but signed a stupid deal so was stuck.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
CANZUK isn't a very catchy name.
Couldn't we just call it "The British Empire"?
I’m just talking about UKC. CANZUK is over-reach and lacks fundamental logic beyond cultural affinity.
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
Sounds like the Commie-fascist EUSSR Reich. Out out out! Make Australia grate again! Protect our boarders!
Complete with lots of French in Canada.
Ah, Quebec. The Welsh of the New World. Thousands of years of Canadian history and we've always speaked English. Take your baguettes and go back to Belgium.
Most recent data says most Quebecois (51%) can "converse" in English
I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.
In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.
I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.
The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.
That would be one of the underlying premises. Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.
(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).
And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?
It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)
It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra
To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England
in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower
Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.
UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.
But Australia etc could be a further leg. And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.
To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO
And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world
I know this is all in fun, but shouldn't we just make the UK and its economy work first? Do we always have to find someone to glue ourselves to to make things better? Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places.
Britain needs some frontier mentality to re-energise its entrepreneurial spirit.
Britain needs to (a) stop indulging in cakeist fantasies and make a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and what we want to achieve, and (b) desist from structuring everything around the needs of wealthy people over the age of 50, to the detriment/exclusion of everyone else. After that, we'll see where we end up.
When the chess position looks impossible, enlarge the board.
There is no realistic possibility of the UK and Canada turning into a political federation.
NZ and Australia are not a political federation. I’m suggesting something a bit like that, more integrated in some areas, less in others perhaps.
So "separate sovereign states" then.
Yes. With two different currencies. But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
I'm liking this. Ideally Canada could join us in the EU single market too.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
Canada is in the CPTPP as we now are
Though CPTPP is a much shallower deal than the Single Market. One of the reasons why the gains from being in the CPTPP are projected to be much smaller than the losses from leaving the SM.
Time will tell but you cannot be in both
Actually, you can. However you couldn’t be in both the CPTPP and the European Customs Union.
And it's Canada day today with our family planning a reunion with lots of their family and friends but unfortunately we are not able to fly long haul anymore
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
Yes. There is more to the late, much missed, David Graeber's Bullshit jobs thesis than just the 5 or 6 categories of useless jobs.
Within many jobs, however useful, is a bullshit penumbra, and this is growing all the time. Forms, records, logging on, communications failure, password culture, compliance, safeguarding, pointless meetings, incompetents in the hierarchy etc, the impact of bullshit jobs in the system taking up time on real jobs.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
To which I respond: you were happy to pay £x per month to get y pieces of work done, so why are you unhappy now you are still getting that and have less office space needs?
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
I actually think the Rees-Mogg mentality betrays a) a complete lack of insight in how stuff actually gets done and b) an inability to trust anyone.
I've seen quite a few senior managers with that mentality but, fortunately, they are a dying breed.
Though I think a lot of management theory is meaningless, peddled by snake oil merchants selling consultancy techniques and academics generating work for themselves, I do think in general even senior people often have a better attitude to things now. It's frowned upon to treat employees like dirt and as just numbers on a spreadsheet (unless you work for Amazon), there's even less arrogance and bullying, a recognition of the benefits of a positive work culture, of trust and responsibility. It's not always achieved, but people know it is better.
Rees-Moggs are just wannabe tyrants who get off on the exercise of power.
And I'm someone who does work from the office rather than home.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
I actually think the Rees-Mogg mentality betrays a) a complete lack of insight in how stuff actually gets done and b) an inability to trust anyone.
I've seen quite a few senior managers with that mentality but, fortunately, they are a dying breed.
I’ve encountered staff who meet that stereotype. Generally in low pay office jobs. The moment they aren’t watched, they stop working.
It’s a system that involves shitty jobs that should really be automated, shitty managers and shitty company owners.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
To which I respond: you were happy to pay £x per month to get y pieces of work done, so why are you unhappy now you are still getting that and have less office space needs?
Because I expect once trials have ended and the 4 day week gets locked in they will return to being a waste of space 20% of the time. The south cambridge trial was january to march...I fully expect if you measure productivity 5 years hence once its locked in you would find a 20% drop in productivity as they return to the old slacker ways.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
An interesting point. I suppose it's a matter of expectation from the employer - if you do everything they wanted you to do in a briefer period, will they necessarily have more for you to do by keeping you around the whole time? Not all jobs will, we already have huge numbers of bullshit jobs.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
The Rees-Mogg attitude is that if he cannot see you working, you must be skiving, because you would only work if he is overseeing it directly. If that were true, there'd be a far bigger problem to be solved than just getting people back in the office, since if people skive whenever they are not directly observed they will likely still be shit workers when monitored.
I actually think the Rees-Mogg mentality betrays a) a complete lack of insight in how stuff actually gets done and b) an inability to trust anyone.
I've seen quite a few senior managers with that mentality but, fortunately, they are a dying breed.
I’ve encountered staff who meet that stereotype. Generally in low pay office jobs. The moment they aren’t watched, they stop working.
It’s a system that involves shitty jobs that should really be automated, shitty managers and shitty company owners.
Yes that's fair, some jobs are so shitty you can't really blame people for skivving a bit - I would if I were in that position.
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
To which I respond: you were happy to pay £x per month to get y pieces of work done, so why are you unhappy now you are still getting that and have less office space needs?
Because I expect once trials have ended and the 4 day week gets locked in they will return to being a waste of space 20% of the time. The south cambridge trial was january to march...I fully expect if you measure productivity 5 years hence once its locked in you would find a 20% drop in productivity as they return to the old slacker ways.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
An interesting point. I suppose it's a matter of expectation from the employer - if you do everything they wanted you to do in a briefer period, will they necessarily have more for you to do by keeping you around the whole time? Not all jobs will, we already have huge numbers of bullshit jobs.
Which is why I say working hours are the problem, set tasks you expect in a week. If I finish them in 2 days I work 2 days....if it takes me 5 days then I work 5 days. As long as we introduce things so bosses cant just ratchet things up and all equivalent staff have the same work load then it rewards people who dont slack off and do jobs efficiently as they work less days than the staff that want to spend a couple of hours scrolling through facebook
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
Since you are discussing productivity, here's a policy that Michael Hayden brought over from the military when he took over NSA: Exercise time, within limits, can be charged to projects.
No numbers on productivity for obvious reasons, but I think he was right in making that change. There is some evidence, for instance, that a 15 minute walk can help a desk worker who is stuck on a difficult problem.
Obviously nobody self-reports that they deliver 60% less than the other guy, which causes a problem in really assessing individual productivity under different organisation models.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
I like the NFL definition where you have to catch it, if it jiggles you have to gain control, then with ball under control demonstrate a " football movement" i.e. prove you have total control by taking several steps with it clearly stuck in youe hands.
Today's the day Elon put the final nail in the Twitter coffin.
Yep - who is going to pay to post their tweets if no-one can read them...
In one swoop he has destroyed the entire business model.
It's bizarre.
Who implements a new policy without informing the public as the users think Twitter has crashed.
Reading between the lines, that might not be what happened. My guess is:-
1) Twitter came under heavy load because the platform is unstable or for some unknown reason 2) Elon panicked, assumed the load was due to scrapers, so cut off external access 3) Users still could not log in owing to heavy load
Note that (3) implies (2) applied a non-solution to a misdiagnosed problem.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
There have been occasional instances of players throwing the ball up in the air only to find the umpire didn't agree they had full control of it.
I'll have a look at the clip but on principle I suspect the umps have got this one right. (I also suspect Starc didn't know the rule well enough.)
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Harsh but true.
(I don't actually think Pagan is a dick, just a bit eccentric, but he does come across that way in that post.)
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Shrugs why because I don't want to mix socially with people I work with? Why the fuck should it be expected of me. It is you that sounds like the complete dick enforcing your views I should like these people. They are random people. I get a job we come together to work why am I a complete dick for saying I have no other connection to them?
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
There have been occasional instances of players throwing the ball up in the air only to find the umpire didn't agree they had full control of it.
I'll have a look at the clip but on principle I suspect the umps have got this one right. (I also suspect Starc didn't know the rule well enough.)
It seems little different to someone being out handling the ball and then complaining they did not realise it was not allowed.
It almost certainly won't affect the result and even if it did, sides get lucky somtimes and it all evens itself out over time.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
I think you sit at the extreme end of the spectrum - there are people at the other who I think you would loathe with a healthy passion. Most people sit at different places on the axis - everyone has a level of non-work familiarity with which they are happy. I do accept frequent moving of jobs doesn't encourage the connections longevity in an organisation does or can do.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Harsh but true.
(I don't actually think Pagan is a dick, just a bit eccentric, but he does come across that way in that post.)
Because I dont decide to connect socially with people I am randomly thrown together? I have plenty of friends I talk to all the time. I don't need work to have a social life. Too many make work their social life in my opinion and would be a lot happier if they didnt. A lesson I learned early in my working life
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Shrugs why because I don't want to mix socially with people I work with? Why the fuck should it be expected of me. It is you that sounds like the complete dick enforcing your views I should like these people. They are random people. I get a job we come together to work why am I a complete dick for saying I have no other connection to them?
It’s not expected of you, but you seem to be closed to the prospect of it entirely. Who knows, some of your colleagues might actually be nice people who you’d like to socialise with after work.
Noone (I think) seems to have combined the two topics with the obvious observation that it seems like the England cricket team only want a 4 day working week. No increase in productivity from it though, apparently...
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
Ah right. I am not a supporter of 80% of the time for 100% of the wage, unless there are very tight measures of productivity and quality but am happy to allow people to work their specified hours flexibly.
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
Presenteeism is a disease I agree and I dont mind flexible hours in the least. I merely assert if you can do the same output in 30 hours as 37.5 we should not be saying oh thats ok we will just reduce your hours we should be going why arent we getting more output out of the 37.5 hours we are paying you for.
An interesting point. I suppose it's a matter of expectation from the employer - if you do everything they wanted you to do in a briefer period, will they necessarily have more for you to do by keeping you around the whole time? Not all jobs will, we already have huge numbers of bullshit jobs.
Which is why I say working hours are the problem, set tasks you expect in a week. If I finish them in 2 days I work 2 days....if it takes me 5 days then I work 5 days. As long as we introduce things so bosses cant just ratchet things up and all equivalent staff have the same work load then it rewards people who dont slack off and do jobs efficiently as they work less days than the staff that want to spend a couple of hours scrolling through facebook
True in principle but how do we compare your performance delivering Project A (new technology, difficult customers) to mine delivering Project B (existing technology, IT savvy customers), when Project B comes in on-time and under budget and Project A is late and over budget?
(Obvs, I should get a huge bonus and you'll be lucky to get another project - them's the breaks.)
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Harsh but true.
(I don't actually think Pagan is a dick, just a bit eccentric, but he does come across that way in that post.)
Because I dont decide to connect socially with people I am randomly thrown together? I have plenty of friends I talk to all the time. I don't need work to have a social life. Too many make work their social life in my opinion and would be a lot happier if they didnt. A lesson I learned early in my working life
And you are perfectly entitled to adopt that view, but it's very unusual.
As I said, I don't think you are a dick but you do sometimes come across as, well... odd.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Shrugs why because I don't want to mix socially with people I work with? Why the fuck should it be expected of me. It is you that sounds like the complete dick enforcing your views I should like these people. They are random people. I get a job we come together to work why am I a complete dick for saying I have no other connection to them?
It’s not expected of you, but you seem to be closed to the prospect of it entirely. Who knows, some of your colleagues might actually be nice people who you’d like to socialise with after work.
I did that in my first job, as soon as I quit the company after ten years.....well suddenly I had no friends. I was a traitor...this was back in the 80's I think I had 1 person that still went for a drink with me.
Work relationships in my experience largely fall off when you stop working for the same company. They aren't your friend they are people with a shared work experience. These days I don't bother. Colleagues are just people I work with. I don't want to hear about their hobbies, their children, their family and really fail to care. I have a large friend group outside work I don't need them. I don't bother with work socials and haven't been to one for years. I just wish they would get the hint and stop trying to force their personal life with me
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Shrugs why because I don't want to mix socially with people I work with? Why the fuck should it be expected of me. It is you that sounds like the complete dick enforcing your views I should like these people. They are random people. I get a job we come together to work why am I a complete dick for saying I have no other connection to them?
"You are as ephemeral as a mayfly", that's why. Nobody should try to force you to make friends but that doesn't mean you should think of the humans you work with a little more than insects.
Personally I find that good workplace relationships help with productivity. You always get a mix of abilities, and sometimes combining two people's skills is what's needed for the task. Developing an understanding helps people work together. Otherwise you're all just a bunch of artisans trying to compete with Henry Ford.
My comment on mayflies was not implying they are insects, it was merely saying our intersection is brief and mercifully over in a short time
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
From my experience, I'd say going completely WFH is as bad as being totally in-office.
If you're some sort experienced, motivated, know-exactly-what-you're-doing lone wolf you can probably keep going indefinitely on your own when WFH, but trying to incorporate new team members and collaborate on new projects across a wide range of people just doesn't seem to work very well remotely. I'm not saying it's impossible and can't be done, but it is an area where some face-to-face time is actually beneficial.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Do you have evidence for that?
Since neither of us wants to compile or read a list of links to news articles, I will say that it is based on a mix of reading the Internet, plus conversations with managers and staff at multinational corporations.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Shrugs why because I don't want to mix socially with people I work with? Why the fuck should it be expected of me. It is you that sounds like the complete dick enforcing your views I should like these people. They are random people. I get a job we come together to work why am I a complete dick for saying I have no other connection to them?
It’s not expected of you, but you seem to be closed to the prospect of it entirely. Who knows, some of your colleagues might actually be nice people who you’d like to socialise with after work.
I did that in my first job, as soon as I quit the company after ten years.....well suddenly I had no friends. I was a traitor...this was back in the 80's I think I had 1 person that still went for a drink with me.
Work relationships in my experience largely fall off when you stop working for the same company. They aren't your friend they are people with a shared work experience. These days I don't bother. Colleagues are just people I work with. I don't want to hear about their hobbies, their children, their family and really fail to care. I have a large friend group outside work I don't need them. I don't bother with work socials and haven't been to one for years. I just wish they would get the hint and stop trying to force their personal life with me
I've had friendships continue after moving to a new workplace, and I would bet many others have too. That's not to say they all continue.
I suspect your attitude is self-fulfilling. I would be very surprised if they hadn't got the hint already.
The irony about this outburst about the 4 day week is that the civil service have been allowing staff to do flexi time and compressed hours for at least the last 20 years. It is very common across the public sector.
Whose outburst? I missed it - been driving all day.
Probably mine but the outburst wasnt about compressed hours it was about south cambridgeshire which is doing a trial on staff working 80% of the time for 100% of the wage.
My view was simple if productivity hasnt fallen then they were slacking 20% of the time if they can do the same work in 80% of the time
That betrays a strange understanding of how people work and what makes them most efficient and productive.
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
I call bollocks on this tbh. I say this because most of my life I have worked in an office. Since WFH my productivity has increased at least twofold as I dont get fucking idiots wanting to socialize and chat to me all the time. Thankfully I don't need to deal with those c**ts now.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
I've also spent most of my working life in an office and the attitude you have to work and colleagues is one I've seen but very rarely. Most people are happy to have a "social" element to the workplace (after all, we spend a good proportion of our lives there). There's always room for "Mr Grumpy" to sit in the corner...
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
Sorry I don't goto work to make friends, I have my own friends outside work. I don't care about you whatsoever I am only in your company because I work with you. I don't want to be your friend or lover. I don't care about your football team, I don't want to hear about what you did on the weekend, nor the latest conspiracy theory you bought into. You are not my friend, you will never be my friend so keep your personal life away from me. Harsh yes but why would I ever want to socialise with anyone I work with. I change jobs every 2 to 3 years. You are as ephemeral as a mayfly
You sound like a right dick
Harsh but true.
(I don't actually think Pagan is a dick, just a bit eccentric, but he does come across that way in that post.)
Because I dont decide to connect socially with people I am randomly thrown together? I have plenty of friends I talk to all the time. I don't need work to have a social life. Too many make work their social life in my opinion and would be a lot happier if they didnt. A lesson I learned early in my working life
And you are perfectly entitled to adopt that view, but it's very unusual.
As I said, I don't think you are a dick but you do sometimes come across as, well... odd.
Perhaps the odd is because I refuse to conform to your perception of what should be? That does not make you right. For example I have 5 friends known them from the 90's we all got together once a week to board game, we still do even though many of us moved away but we do it online now every week using boardgame sites and teamspeak. We still physically get together for birthdays, new year etc. None of them I met in a work environment.
This summer I have a friend coming over from lousiana with her daughter to stay a couple of weeks we have been friends for years. She DJ's at a virtual night club and I do the hosting for her, we will be joined for the visit by a mutual friend from skegness.
I have people I think of as family and think the same way of me in holland, the us and south africa because we are all here for each other.
My point is I am not antisocial, I just don't feel a need to connect with you because I happen to work with you or feel any need to know about you outside work
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Or alternatively, all of their managers are nervous about being seen to be no use.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
There have been occasional instances of players throwing the ball up in the air only to find the umpire didn't agree they had full control of it.
I'll have a look at the clip but on principle I suspect the umps have got this one right. (I also suspect Starc didn't know the rule well enough.)
Thinking about it I think that's correct, bit odd to accuse him of cheating tbh.
I know it won't happen but, ffs, if England somehow contrive to win from here we are NEVER going to hear the end of it from Leon- 'I was there!' -damus.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
That's the shot, clearly grounded.
That certainly suggests he doesn't fully know the law. He could easily have rotated his hand to keep the ball off the ground.
At the very least you'd have to say he gave the umpire the a decision to make, and a chance to get it wrong.
As an ex-referee I find it annoying when players do things that force the ref to make a judgement call when they could easily have avoided doing so. I've no sympathy then if the ref gives it against them.
If Starc rolls over, or just rolls his hand, there is no question of the catch being disallowed. He didn't have to give the umpire an awkward one to decide, so he really can't moan that the decision has gone against him.
Comments
Like many countries with lower working hours, and yet higher productivity than ours.
The Audit Commission did a good job holding local councils and Government to account particularly in respect of fraud.
That role has fallen to groups like CIPFA.
What I am not in favour of is people being paid to do work and spending time they are being paid for not doing work and doing stuff like scrolling through facebook. Especially when its me as a tax payer paying them
NEWS: Twitter's web version no longer allows users to browse without logging in. All urls redirect to the signup page.
This is believed to be a measure to make it harder for scrapers to take Twitter's data, like ChatGPT's web browsing plugin has been doing.
Jun 30, 2023
https://twitter.com/TitterDaily/status/1674765247255654400
Elon Musk @elonmusk
Temporary emergency measure. We were getting data pillaged so much that it was degrading service for normal users!
8:41 PM · Jun 30, 2023
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1674865731136020505
See also https://www.arabnews.com/node/2330656/media
Presenteeism OTOH is generally an ethos adopted by piss-poor managers in my experience:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61202152
Indeed we actually saw a polar bear in the open in its own unspoilt environment
But with a single market, freedom of movement, and close collaboration on defence, trade, and industrial policy.
< I realise this is now getting into the realms of utter fantasy, but it's a Saturday ! >
Nobody with whom I've ever worked (and I include myself) works 100% of the time. The brain requires breaks, diversions - indeed, one of the issues with WFH has been the absence of those diversions. Indeed, I'd go further and offer the thought the more people work the less productive they are.
The Anglo-Saxon long hours culture is partly predicated on a notion if you work longer you get more done. The other part is the notion of management by attendance - if your manager can see you working you must be working and if you must be working you must be productive. That simply empowers inadequate management.
You could probably reduce the working week to 25 hours without a huge impact in productivity and efficiency - presumably with AI (sorry @Leon) that might be an option.
Putting it another way - why do less with more when you can do more with less?
In one swoop he has destroyed the entire business model.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/partygate-report-boris-jacob-rees-mogg-b2366510.html
I've seen quite a few senior managers with that mentality but, fortunately, they are a dying breed.
However you couldn’t be in both the CPTPP and the European Customs Union.
The restaurant required French to be spoken if you wanted to order a meal which wasn't a problem for us as we could get by in French, but watching all the Americans leaving was hilarious but no doubt not to them
Who implements a new policy without informing the public as the users think Twitter has crashed.
Tories = England
Then again, we must never forget he wanted to back out of buying twitter in the first place - he did not want to be running it, but signed a stupid deal so was stuck.
Couldn't we just call it "The British Empire"?
CANZUK is over-reach and lacks fundamental logic beyond cultural affinity.
Within many jobs, however useful, is a bullshit penumbra, and this is growing all the time. Forms, records, logging on, communications failure, password culture, compliance, safeguarding, pointless meetings, incompetents in the hierarchy etc, the impact of bullshit jobs in the system taking up time on real jobs.
Plus of course Parkinson's law.
Maybe not v VAR
And Aussie cheats
Rees-Moggs are just wannabe tyrants who get off on the exercise of power.
And I'm someone who does work from the office rather than home.
Many seem to see work as a social experience, a place to make friends, find partners...oh and sometimes they do a little work
It’s a system that involves shitty jobs that should really be automated, shitty managers and shitty company owners.
Done by lunchtime.
Where I do agree is the productivity rise caused by WfH. I worked from home before it became fashionable and I agree you can be much more productive though I'd argue your effectiveness declines over time without a distraction or two to force a mental reset.
We now have organisations wanting their staff back in the office and expecting WfH levels of productivity and wondering why it isn't happening.
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
Wasn't aware of this.
I'd take the chance myself. Picnic will be nice, but there is no chance it will be one of the greatest picnics of all time.
No numbers on productivity for obvious reasons, but I think he was right in making that change. There is some evidence, for instance, that a 15 minute walk can help a desk worker who is stuck on a difficult problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general)
(Full disclosure: I think his first book is fascinating, and a useful corrective to much of the nonsense written about US intelligence agencies.)
1) Twitter came under heavy load because the platform is unstable or for some unknown reason
2) Elon panicked, assumed the load was due to scrapers, so cut off external access
3) Users still could not log in owing to heavy load
Note that (3) implies (2) applied a non-solution to a misdiagnosed problem.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
I'll have a look at the clip but on principle I suspect the umps have got this one right. (I also suspect Starc didn't know the rule well enough.)
(I don't actually think Pagan is a dick, just a bit eccentric, but he does come across that way in that post.)
It almost certainly won't affect the result and even if it did, sides get lucky somtimes and it all evens itself out over time.
It's different for everyone.
(Obvs, I should get a huge bonus and you'll be lucky to get another project - them's the breaks.)
As I said, I don't think you are a dick but you do sometimes come across as, well... odd.
Work relationships in my experience largely fall off when you stop working for the same company. They aren't your friend they are people with a shared work experience. These days I don't bother. Colleagues are just people I work with. I don't want to hear about their hobbies, their children, their family and really fail to care. I have a large friend group outside work I don't need them. I don't bother with work socials and haven't been to one for years. I just wish they would get the hint and stop trying to force their personal life with me
If you're some sort experienced, motivated, know-exactly-what-you're-doing lone wolf you can probably keep going indefinitely on your own when WFH, but trying to incorporate new team members and collaborate on new projects across a wide range of people just doesn't seem to work very well remotely. I'm not saying it's impossible and can't be done, but it is an area where some face-to-face time is actually beneficial.
I suspect the Australian quick bowlers will make it a very torrid opening hour and we are basically two wickets from the tail.
We can win from this position - 11/2 with Paddy Power.
Of course, some of us (e.g. me) are normal but most of the rest of you are pretty weird tbh.
I suspect your attitude is self-fulfilling. I would be very surprised if they hadn't got the hint already.
This summer I have a friend coming over from lousiana with her daughter to stay a couple of weeks we have been friends for years. She DJ's at a virtual night club and I do the hosting for her, we will be joined for the visit by a mutual friend from skegness.
I have people I think of as family and think the same way of me in holland, the us and south africa because we are all here for each other.
My point is I am not antisocial, I just don't feel a need to connect with you because I happen to work with you or feel any need to know about you outside work
At the very least you'd have to say he gave the umpire the a decision to make, and a chance to get it wrong.
As an ex-referee I find it annoying when players do things that force the ref to make a judgement call when they could easily have avoided doing so. I've no sympathy then if the ref gives it against them.
If Starc rolls over, or just rolls his hand, there is no question of the catch being disallowed. He didn't have to give the umpire an awkward one to decide, so he really can't moan that the decision has gone against him.