Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another NHS hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
On the way home remarked on that to the taxi driver who said that seemed normal nowadays, if the remarks from his customers who were going home after appointments were any guide.
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
Burnham will quickly improve Labour Government relations with the big majority concerned with Israeli aggression
I anticipate sanctions on trade, especially military, sanctions against specific political figures and stronger handling of Israeli embassy
He has good relations with Manchester Jewish Community to ensure counter balance on safety of jewish people whilst exposing the rent a mob uver Zionists who yell and scream at anyone favouring a 2 party state, some of whom should be expelled from the uk in the same way extreme Muslim clerics are.
I anticipate a greater effort to encourage moderates on all sides within the UK
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
That thunderstorm was epic - sadly it only grazed Warminster on its way past. I do love a thunderstorm.
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.
A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.
So he resigned rather than fight to avoid having to be PM any longer. Seems reasonable.
The worst possible fate for a Labour PM is, having won an election with 400+ MPs, then 5 years later to lose to a Reform government. For Starmer that would be a much worse fate than only serving two years. Personally I think that would have been unlikely, we shall never be certain, but the perspective of a deeply unpopular PM may be less sanguine.
As at this moment I think the chance of a Reform government is lowered. I notice the bookies say the same. Labour are now favourites for 'most seats' and roughly joint favourites for a majority.
BTW, at current odds is a 2028 general election value?
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
I've worked in both public and private. Certainly in the lower tiers where I was, it is more a question of difficulty in shedding ineffective people rather than protecting them.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
That thunderstorm was epic - sadly it only grazed Warminster on its way past. I do love a thunderstorm.
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
Thank you! Sadly while the Cole brain is still (nearly) as good as ever, the rest of the carcass is creaking quite a bit.
I suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I think Reeves has been a rather good CoE, although I accept her presentational skills are weak.
I would advise Burnham to keep her in place for a year or so, to provide some stability, and then make a decision next spring.
Reeves made the numbers add up while she was CoE, which is the basic requirement of the job, and a requirement several of her predecessors failed to meet.
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
No one is interested in Gaza. We aren't even concerned with Westhoughton. Brexit played no part either.
The only thing that affects the average voter is next weeks pay packet, whether Just eats are late, the colour of their next door neighbours, and how much beer is left. And they let them vote...
And that’s good. When the general public get enthused about abstract philosophical concepts horror and mass graves have a habit of following.
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
Other reasons for Gaza not being a factor might include that the Greens, who are big on Gaza, barely campaigned in Makerfield. There may also be a sense the Americans have calmed things down. What is vaguely interesting is that there is much less fuss about Israel flattening Lebanon. Cynics might also wonder how much was stirred up from Iran.
I don’t agree with it. It argues that tolerance of jurors breaking their oath is not the same as approval. In my view, it’s a classic lawyer’s argument and analysis that has no real meaning or significance in the real world.
If there’s no punishment or consequences, then whether it’s technically “tolerance” or “approval” is irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same.
Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.
I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.
Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.
Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.
I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.
Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.
Do you think it would be appropriate to have someone who has pleaded guilty to fraud serve as chancellor? Might that not send the wrong message?
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
That’s why no one innovates, unless you can dangle a big financial incentive. Perhaps councils need to introduce fat bonuses?
It’s hardly innovating to pay people five days pay to do four days work
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
Its a really important decision because it will do so much to shape his government. He also needs a Chancellor who can survive the buffeting that is coming from both the markets and from inside the party as so many have to learn yet again that austerity was not a choice but a necessity.
I would be very concerned if it was Ed Miliband. He has some relevant experience but the policies he has promoted in Environment through both net zero and in the North Sea have been hugely damaging and anti-growth.
Louise Haigh, in my opinion, has neither the skills or experience for it but its not unusual for the person who has run a successful campaign for the leader to get it. I suspect she is undervalued.
Streeting has shown he is quick and robust in the way he has faced down the most powerful unions in the country at Health. His problem, and the reason he is not a candidate, is that he has very little of a following in the party (like Reeves in that respect) so he doesn't add any great strength to the ticket. He's probably rightly favourite though and I suspect the markets would like it.
I don't think that Yvette Cooper has the stamina for it given her health problems.
Mahmood would be a possibility, especially if Burnham wanted another woman in the role.
Do you think it would be appropriate to have someone who has pleaded guilty to fraud serve as chancellor? Might that not send the wrong message?
Sounds like a good skillset for delivering a budget spending forecast whilst keeping a straight face, no?
What problem does McFadden solve? Stale, male, pale, with no obvious ties to Burnham and has been linked with Labour First which is the mysteriously-funded pressure group that replaced Corbyn with Starmer.
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
Other reasons for Gaza not being a factor might include that the Greens, who are big on Gaza, barely campaigned in Makerfield. There may also be a sense the Americans have calmed things down. What is vaguely interesting is that there is much less fuss about Israel flattening Lebanon. Cynics might also wonder how much was stirred up from Iran.
Mrs C and I were remarking the other day how Gaza and the dreadfully treated Gazan's seemed to have faded from the public conscience. Hope there's some rebuilding going on, and not Trump's fairyland.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.
You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
malcolmg
This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done.
Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
No. Get the job done is fine. If you’ve enough work for four days do it in four days get paid for four days.
I’ve never thrown a punch in anger at anyone since I left school.
You’re an entitled public sector leech justifying the unjustifiable.
My issue is not working four days it’s being paid five days to work four. Especially at the largesse of the taxpayer
Hopefully AI will do away with loads of you.
I'm surprised any council hasn't realised that anyone who can do their job in 4 days will end up getting 4 days pay by some reorganisation etc. sadly I've always worked in jobs that need attendance and work done 5 days a week, like teaching and school admin exams officer.
I can see plenty of equal pay disputes coming in the future for this reason if it happens
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
But over time there should be a reduction int he number of staff otherwise the taxpayer is being inefficient
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't Makerfield overwhelmingly a white constituency?
Burnham will quickly improve Labour Government relations with the big majority concerned with Israeli aggression
I anticipate sanctions on trade, especially military, sanctions against specific political figures and stronger handling of Israeli embassy
He has good relations with Manchester Jewish Community to ensure counter balance on safety of jewish people whilst exposing the rent a mob uver Zionists who yell and scream at anyone favouring a 2 party state, some of whom should be expelled from the uk in the same way extreme Muslim clerics are.
I anticipate a greater effort to encourage moderates on all sides within the UK
I hope so. It would be good if the moderate parties could realise the danger that the country faces from extreme right AND left. I think that in the end, just as in France, the extremes won't win because of tactical voting. Certainly hope I'm right. I'd rather an endless Starmer government than one day of Farage or the boob hypnotist.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
That thunderstorm was epic - sadly it only grazed Warminster on its way past. I do love a thunderstorm.
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
Thank you! Sadly while the Cole brain is still (nearly) as good as ever, the rest of the carcass is creaking quite a bit.
I'm so way behind you on the journey but mine is creaking too!
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
But over time there should be a reduction int he number of staff otherwise the taxpayer is being inefficient
Certainly agree with that. That’s the main benefit in the long run - my concern is that my local council doesn’t have the incentives in place to encourage the innovation, whether reduced hours or financial, in the same way a private sector firm would.
Frankly the biggest issue by miles in the public sector is the pension. It attracts the wrong kind of person if you’re looking for new ideas and energy relative to a higher salary + lower pension.
In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.
A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.
Returning to Starmer's speech yesterday I think his list of achievements was fine as far as it went, but it's a set of actions any Labour prime minister would have made in the same circumstances. The achievement genuinely attributable to Starmer was to make Labour electable and deliver a majority government, as implied by his speech.
I think most people expected Starmer to stand down before the next election, and perhaps that was his plan too. What's new is a clear off-the-shelf alternative to Starmer that's available now.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
That thunderstorm was epic - sadly it only grazed Warminster on its way past. I do love a thunderstorm.
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
Thank you! Sadly while the Cole brain is still (nearly) as good as ever, the rest of the carcass is creaking quite a bit.
I'm so way behind you on the journey but mine is creaking too!
Sympathies. Most, if not all of my issues seem to be, appropriately perhaps, as a result of cervical myelopathy.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
Party management issues bring down Prime Ministers. It is idle to pretend these things do not matter.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.
You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
malcolmg
This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done.
Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
No. Get the job done is fine. If you’ve enough work for four days do it in four days get paid for four days.
I’ve never thrown a punch in anger at anyone since I left school.
You’re an entitled public sector leech justifying the unjustifiable.
My issue is not working four days it’s being paid five days to work four. Especially at the largesse of the taxpayer
Hopefully AI will do away with loads of you.
The right approach isn’t to pay them less but it’s to allocate them more work
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
Yes it is. Certainly in my experience over 40 years.
More work allocated so helping business grow more or more work allocated then headcount reduced
In the public sector it’s not about enhancing productivity or effectiveness it’s about protecting inefficient people.
Health Service productivity is growing quite quickly:
Certainly it is very much the focus of my Trust's SMT, with us having regular meetings to look at obstacles to improving further and how to overcome these.
Good Morning everybody. Thunderstorm here earlier but the sky is clearing now.
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
That thunderstorm was epic - sadly it only grazed Warminster on its way past. I do love a thunderstorm.
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
Thank you! Sadly while the Cole brain is still (nearly) as good as ever, the rest of the carcass is creaking quite a bit.
I'm so way behind you on the journey but mine is creaking too!
Sympathies. Most, if not all of my issues seem to be, appropriately perhaps, as a result of cervical myelopathy.
I'm probably being over dramatic but I'm not as fit as I was!
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
That’s why no one innovates, unless you can dangle a big financial incentive. Perhaps councils need to introduce fat bonuses?
Or they need to be better managed. My job is about encouraging people to deliver more, and giving them the tools that they need to do so.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.
You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
If they work five days give them enough for five days
If they’ve only enough work for four days then work four get paid for four
Condescending bitch
You also seem to spend a fair bit of the working week on here. 🙄
Make me come into an office and that’s a working day.
Insist I’m at the end of a phone even if you never ring me that’s a working day
When I was a Councillor we closed some Public Service Points.
People complained about it, having to Travel because there wasn’t a place in the village, but in some cases we were getting as few as 3 members of the public a day.
We reduced hours but still had building costs.
We transferred some central admin to give the people something useful to do while waiting for someone to drop in, but despite people claims about bureaucracy there just wasn’t enough of a good fit.
The Council had earlier set up a Call Centre and between that and email footfall just collapsed.
It’s easy to say give them more work or use fewer people but it’s often the case in the public sector that there is a limit to efficiency.
A private company can withdraw an unprofitable service, stop making something that isn’t selling or profitable but a Council or the NHS really can’t in many cases.
Sometimes we are obliged to deliver services to places and people where it is hugely inefficient and makes no economic sense.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
Every job I've had, when I was able to streamline which was quite often, more work was allocated. Isn't that normal?
That’s why no one innovates, unless you can dangle a big financial incentive. Perhaps councils need to introduce fat bonuses?
you mean even fatter than the ones they get for failure at present
In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.
A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.
Returning to Starmer's speech yesterday I think his list of achievements was fine as far as it went, but it's a set of actions any Labour prime minister would have made in the same circumstances. The achievement genuinely attributable to Starmer was to make Labour electable and deliver a majority government, as implied by his speech.
I think most people expected Starmer to stand down before the next election, and perhaps that was his plan too. What's new is a clear off-the-shelf alternative to Starmer that's available now.
Remember Corbyn's Labour got more votes than Starmer's. Fewer seats, of course, but more votes, so let's not overplay the ‘electable’ card. Twice!
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
That betrays a complete ignorance of how productivity growth materialises - and explains why we have such a problem with it in UK.
If a worker can produce the same in 4 days what previously was done in 5, then they shouldn’t get a pay cut for not working on the Friday. Frankly they should get a pay rise to recognise their innovation.
If they can do the same work in four days they currently do in five they are lazy and stringing the work out.
It’s hardly innovation. They’re doing the same job with no different tools or resources just putting more effort in
If they can do in four days the work of five give them more
Typical useless public sector leech. The world owes you a living and a good salary.
This is just incoherent. Of course they would string the work out if they are forced to come in for 5 days a week.
You’re not unique though - presenteeism is embedded and going to be very difficult to eradicate.
malcolmg
This public sector retard thinks public sector workers are ‘innovative’ and deserve a pay rise if they do four days at a normal workrate instead of stretching four days work out to five 🤣🤣
You’re more interested in servitude than actually getting the job done.
Bit pathetic you require Malcolmg to back you up. The sort of coward who starts a fight in the playground and relies on others to finish it.
No. Get the job done is fine. If you’ve enough work for four days do it in four days get paid for four days.
I’ve never thrown a punch in anger at anyone since I left school.
You’re an entitled public sector leech justifying the unjustifiable.
My issue is not working four days it’s being paid five days to work four. Especially at the largesse of the taxpayer
Hopefully AI will do away with loads of you.
The right approach isn’t to pay them less but it’s to allocate them more work
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
Don't think it's true though. Burnham has the fewest obligations to senior people of any recent incoming prime minister. Fewer even than Johnson who did a hatchet job on the cabinet he inherited. Streeting is probably the only one he needs to offer a high level job to. He might choose to keep other ministers on but he doesn't owe them favours.
I think the likeliest bet for Burnham’s pick as Chancellor is Ed Miliband. Given he wants to shift left towards tax and spend he will need a leftwinger to implement that like Red Ed. Streeting perhaps to Foreign Secretary as reward for backing him. Mahmood could stay as Home Secretary as Burnham wants to keep her tough approach to illegal immigration
Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.
Mahmood is one of the reasons Starmer lost his job. If Labour wanted to become another version of Restore/Reform they might as well have chosen her as leader. They might even have picked up a few of the Alanbrooke voters who get excited having a woman in charge
How were her reforms unpopular or unfair ?
She’s hardly far right. She’s managing migration fairly
She banned two Americans on the say so of the Israeli government from coming to the UK for a debate at the Oxford Union.
In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.
A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.
Returning to Starmer's speech yesterday I think his list of achievements was fine as far as it went, but it's a set of actions any Labour prime minister would have made in the same circumstances. The achievement genuinely attributable to Starmer was to make Labour electable and deliver a majority government, as implied by his speech.
I think most people expected Starmer to stand down before the next election, and perhaps that was his plan too. What's new is a clear off-the-shelf alternative to Starmer that's available now.
Remember Corbyn's Labour got more votes than Starmer's. Fewer seats, of course, but more votes, so let's not overplay the ‘electable’ card. Twice!
Starmer's curse is that he thinks he won a massive mandate. The skewed nature of the vote and system giving him a whopping majority with far fewer votes than Corbyn achieved. I wonder if he will ever truly understand what has happened in the last two years.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
In defence of Burnham there is this to say. The body of people who both took against Starmer and had the power to do something about it between elections is 400 Labour MPs and no-one else. 100% of the attention needs to be on them. If Starmer had been half a good as voters expected he would by now be comfortably on his way to a second term at a time of his choosing. For some time it has not been possible to locate large numbers from the 400 who confidently believed they could win the next election and that Starmer could avert the disaster of Reform.
A coup is not a situation where 81 MPs have to name a candidate, the other 320 MPs can all support the PM and beat the insurgent soundly. Don't look at Burnham, look at the 400 and at the way in which they would neither keep Starmer in power nor find a single one of their number to replace him.
Returning to Starmer's speech yesterday I think his list of achievements was fine as far as it went, but it's a set of actions any Labour prime minister would have made in the same circumstances. The achievement genuinely attributable to Starmer was to make Labour electable and deliver a majority government, as implied by his speech.
I think most people expected Starmer to stand down before the next election, and perhaps that was his plan too. What's new is a clear off-the-shelf alternative to Starmer that's available now.
Remember Corbyn's Labour got more votes than Starmer's. Fewer seats, of course, but more votes, so let's not overplay the ‘electable’ card. Twice!
One might think that gaming FPTP to get a huge majority on a meagre vote contained all the seeds of Starmer's demise. The tactical genius/strategic cretinism of McSweeney et al.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
Don't think it's true though. Burnham has the fewest obligations to senior people of any recent incoming prime minister. Fewer even than Johnson who did a hatchet job on the cabinet he inherited. Streeting is probably the only one he needs to offer a high level job to. He might choose to keep other ministers on but he doesn't owe them favours.
My contention is that Burnham needs to buy Miliband off because if Miliband stands against him, Ed might get more votes like he did when he was elected leader.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
They may not but Labour do far better with female voters than male so I don't think it's the "gotcha" moment you want it to be.
I can guarantee that if Labour had chosen a black female leader you would be the first deriding it as "woke" gesture politics.
There are 186 female Labour MPs, easily enough for the sisterhood to put two of their number on the ballot. There is no other way of assessing the views of the sisterhood on their own number and their capacity to be the PM who can win the next election than by following their actions. Nominations open on 9th July IIRC.
Politically, what would be more damaging for the SNP - prosecuting and locking up the leader’s husband for embezzlement, or leaving him in situ to nick even more money and bankrupt the party?
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
It does make you think when you consider how many politicians in former times served in either the first or second world wars. Perhaps helps bring a sense of what is and what isn't truly important.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy* Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
*Anzio. Not an inconsiderable achievement but still..
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Seriously, Mahmood looks like a good option but if you've got a Home Secretary who is perceived to be doing well don't change that, you're unlikley to find another one.
Mahmood is one of the reasons Starmer lost his job. If Labour wanted to become another version of Restore/Reform they might as well have chosen her as leader. They might even have picked up a few of the Alanbrooke voters who get excited having a woman in charge
How were her reforms unpopular or unfair ?
She’s hardly far right. She’s managing migration fairly
She banned two Americans on the say so of the Israeli government from coming to the UK for a debate at the Oxford Union.
All Labour home secretaries tend to be authoritarian, Straw, Blunkett, Reid ... they're the first to bend to media pressure
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
It does make you think when you consider how many politicians in former times served in either the first or second world wars. Perhaps helps bring a sense of what is and what isn't truly important.
That, and that we all need each other. Not just politicians, either. It's a shame that the price of that lesson is so high.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
And a strong contender for ‘Chancellor with the Best Eyebrows’.
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
They’re doing an excellent job of putting me off him, which may be the point.
He's the Labour version of John "Johnny" Mercer. A fleeting leadership prospect consisting of 15 stone of minced beef and zero brain cells in a suit. His career trajectory will be similar.
Aren't we continually told that the public sector is underfunded and unable to complete all the work which needs doing.
Whether that is local government, repairing the roads, NHS, HMRC, plods and courts and almost anything else that can be mentioned.
Surely then if five days work can be completed in four days then the consequence should be extra work is done on the fifth day.
Or is it the case that this 'do five days work in only four days so lets reduce the hours but not the pay' only applies to some office based middle and senior managers.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Just a thought -The Labour Party won 33.7% of the votes cast at the 2024 General election (That is 66.3% did NOT vote Labour) - 600,000 less actual votes than Jeremy Corbyn got in 2019. I think sometimes they need to be reminded of this.
I see Darren Jones the man who was still messaging Mandleson, even when sacked as Ambassador to US by SKS, to say how sorry he was for him and that he had done a "great job" is deemed by the toxic right wing faction to be the best person to challenge the King
These people have zero self awareness and zero political nounce.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
They may not but Labour do far better with female voters than male so I don't think it's the "gotcha" moment you want it to be.
I can guarantee that if Labour had chosen a black female leader you would be the first deriding it as "woke" gesture politics.
The "gotcha" isnt the one you think it is, its the blatant hypocrisy of Labour lecturing everyone else for something the dont do themselves.
As for a black female leader I'd quite happily vote for Kemi if it wasnt for the untrustworthy shits behing her.
A black female leader - look like the Tories live Labour values more than Labour
400 Labour MPs are looking for someone who can win in 2029/8. This easily trumps all other considerations SFAICS. No woman comes to mind who most of the public would think 'winner of the millions of centre ground voters'. If one did, we would in the last few weeks hear a lot about them. The very obvious fact that the gallant 400 have quietly decided that Rayner is not that person is significant. The 186 women Labour MPs acting collegiately would be an overwhelming force. But they have decided that no female candidate is currently suitable. I think they are right to conclude this, sadly.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
If you want to install AC that requires a lot of energy, so you either have to install far more generation or you become more efficient. Plus being energy efficient is cheaper long-term. Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
Just what Labour needs, a lifelong Tory voter who jumped to Labour as the best chance to become an MP. It's that kind of apolitical opportunism that the country is crying out for, despite already having had decades of it.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
Both are nice. And not mutually exclusive. Businesses make this sort of mistake all the time: "if we're growing sales, why do we need to control overheads?"
The other mistake businesses make is conflating efficiency with "going without". Energy efficient a/c is readily available.
Just a thought -The Labour Party won 33.7% of the votes cast at the 2024 General election (That is 66.3% did NOT vote Labour) - 600,000 less actual votes than Jeremy Corbyn got in 2019. I think sometimes they need to be reminded of this.
The game of general elections is fought on two sets of rules: The rules over which parliament has power to fix how it operates in broad scope - ie 650 seats without gerrymandering and FPTP in which all can stand and all can vote. Secondly the rules decided by the pool of voters and their collective 'wisdom of crowds.' No establishment can control this. That pool of voters is like a jury. You can tell them, persuade the, cajole them but they will do what they like. So you are never comparing like with like. Corbyn lost, deservedly, and Starmer won, deservedly. (And has been ousted, deservedly!)
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
My mate who keeps a decent koi pond has solar on the roof which then heats the water in winter. Perfect.
I think energy efficiency is good for a number of reasons but if the power supply is totally renewable its hard to see downsides.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
If you want to install AC that requires a lot of energy, so you either have to install far more generation or you become more efficient. Plus being energy efficient is cheaper long-term. Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
If my hypothetical solar is generating net energy then I get to decide if I sell it back to the grid or use it to make my life better.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
Because energy efficiency makes decarbonisation easier, presumably, since you don't have to generate so much electricity.
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
...Thirdly, he doesn't know what to do about the existential dangers, other than throw money we haven't got at solutions that may be obsolete implemented by a MoD that doesn't work.
But he looks good in a beret, mind. Look, here is a picture of him in a pub. With a pint. Yay.
On topic, one of the things we somehow have to get back to is having Great Officers with plausible Prime Ministerial batons in their knapsack. People who are obviously loyal to the PM, but are clearly capable of taking over if something... unfortunate... were to happen.
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
To think, Denis Healey was a Normandy Beachmaster. THAT'S what you need in the back pocket of your Chancellor.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
If you want to install AC that requires a lot of energy, so you either have to install far more generation or you become more efficient. Plus being energy efficient is cheaper long-term. Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
Comments
On (this) topic, I had (yet) another NHS hospital appointment yesterday. I'd had to wait a bit for actual appointment, but to be fair it wasn't urgent. One the day I arrived just in time, checked in and had barely got my backside onto a chair in the waiting area when my name was called. Half an hour later I was on my way home after a pleasant, unhurried, but thorough investigation of the problem and discussion of alternatives.
On the way home remarked on that to the taxi driver who said that seemed normal nowadays, if the remarks from his customers who were going home after appointments were any guide.
I anticipate sanctions on trade, especially military, sanctions against specific political figures and stronger handling of Israeli embassy
He has good relations with Manchester Jewish Community to ensure counter balance on safety of jewish people whilst exposing the rent a mob uver Zionists who yell and scream at anyone favouring a 2 party state, some of whom should be expelled from the uk in the same way extreme Muslim clerics are.
I anticipate a greater effort to encourage moderates on all sides within the UK
Is “coronated” actually a word?
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2069333711569535409
Hopefully your health continues as well as it can!
As at this moment I think the chance of a Reform government is lowered. I notice the bookies say the same. Labour are now favourites for 'most seats' and roughly joint favourites for a majority.
BTW, at current odds is a 2028 general election value?
I don’t agree with it. It argues that tolerance of jurors breaking their oath is not the same as approval. In my view, it’s a classic lawyer’s argument and analysis that has no real meaning or significance in the real world.
If there’s no punishment or consequences, then whether it’s technically “tolerance” or “approval” is irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same.
If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
Frankly the biggest issue by miles in the public sector is the pension. It attracts the wrong kind of person if you’re looking for new ideas and energy relative to a higher salary + lower pension.
I think most people expected Starmer to stand down before the next election, and perhaps that was his plan too. What's new is a clear off-the-shelf alternative to Starmer that's available now.
"Ok then, what name have you got"
"Wes Streeting"
The ex-husband of former Scottish First Minister, Peter Murrell was sentenced for 5 years and 3 months for embezzling funds.
Or longer still?
I can guarantee that if Labour had chosen a black female leader you would be the first deriding it as "woke" gesture politics.
People complained about it, having to Travel because there wasn’t a place in the village, but in some cases we were getting as few as 3 members of the public a day.
We reduced hours but still had building costs.
We transferred some central admin to give the people something useful to do while waiting for someone to drop in, but despite people claims about bureaucracy there just wasn’t enough of a good fit.
The Council had earlier set up a Call Centre and between that and email footfall just collapsed.
It’s easy to say give them more work or use fewer people but it’s often the case in the public sector that there is a limit to efficiency.
A private company can withdraw an unprofitable service, stop making something that isn’t selling or profitable but a Council or the NHS really can’t in many cases.
Sometimes we are obliged to deliver services to places and people where it is hugely inefficient and makes no economic sense.
As a former Council Chief Exec once told me;
There is a public private sector split!
They do what makes money, we do what’s left!
Peter.
1.4 million soldiers
25,000 armoured fighting vehicles
45,000 artillery
1,500 anti-aircraft systems
Already through 12,000 tanks.
A phenomenal litany of failure for a three-day SMO
Reform UK: 25% (+1 from 14-15 Jun)
Conservatives: 20% (+1)
Labour: 18% (-1)
Greens: 15% (=)
Lib Dems: 14% (+1)
Restore Britain: 3% (-1)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (=)
Your Party: 0% (=)
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2069338063977726448
2024: 9,708,716 votes
2019: 10,269,051 votes
2017: 12,877,918 votes
That's not Reeves, for all she has got a lot of flack for broadly doing the right things. It's not Cooper, either. I'm not sure who it is.
"You polled no votes at all. Not a sausage. Bugger all...."
The tactical genius/strategic cretinism of McSweeney et al.
Not an inconsiderable achievement but still..
A Russian thermal power plant in Kerch in Russian-occupied Crimea has been hit in a Ukrainian drone and missile attack.
Half of Crimea is now completely without electricity.
Two things jump out about Carns. One is his innate understanding of working-class ambition – both its power and its precariousness. I can’t think of anyone on the Labour benches more insistent about the need to address the disintegration of ordinary aspiration as social mobility collapses. Born in Aberdeen and raised on a council estate by a single mother, he is instinctively an aspirational conservative. He claims that he only stopped voting Tory following the austerity cuts to youth services.
Second, he grasps more than any other Labour politician the existential dangers facing Britain as it prevaricates over defence spending.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/23/this-is-al-carnss-chance-to-spoil-burnham-coronation/
As for a black female leader I'd quite happily vote for Kemi if it wasnt for the untrustworthy shits behing her.
A black female leader - look like the Tories live Labour values more than Labour
Aren't we continually told that the public sector is underfunded and unable to complete all the work which needs doing.
Whether that is local government, repairing the roads, NHS, HMRC, plods and courts and almost anything else that can be mentioned.
Surely then if five days work can be completed in four days then the consequence should be extra work is done on the fifth day.
Or is it the case that this 'do five days work in only four days so lets reduce the hours but not the pay' only applies to some office based middle and senior managers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDfzRNNPGsQ
These people have zero self awareness and zero political nounce.
Just like SKS
https://youtu.be/0_nKEAkDCtg?is=PPcJ_6fvImwojMRT
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
It's that kind of apolitical opportunism that the country is crying out for, despite already having had decades of it.
Businesses make this sort of mistake all the time:
"if we're growing sales, why do we need to control overheads?"
The other mistake businesses make is conflating efficiency with "going without". Energy efficient a/c is readily available.
I think energy efficiency is good for a number of reasons but if the power supply is totally renewable its hard to see downsides.
But he looks good in a beret, mind. Look, here is a picture of him in a pub. With a pint. Yay.