On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
There is now a process for the foreign recognition of legal standing across the EU, however, it's used by very few people.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Yes already started in Surrey. Tories in SCC were trying to secretly push for a Surrey wide Unitary Authority which would have been the largest in the country and effectively a Conservative dictatorship. Currently the largest Unitary has a population of 570K. Surrey would be 1.2m.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
And from Tory district councillors who would no longer have a seat
300k minimum would entail pretty much a total redrawing of metropolitans - even where a metropolitan is 300k+, it almost certainly has a neighbour that isn't.
I have to say I didn't really know the applicable populations. However there are only two current English local government area under 300,000 that are not special cases: Rutland, and Herefordshire.
"We were alerted to a series of racist messages sent to a footballer today and after looking into them and conducting checks, we have arrested a boy," read a WM Police tweet.
"The 12-year-old from Solihull has been taken to custody. Thanks to everyone who raised it. Racism won't be tolerated."
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
And from Tory district councillors who would no longer have a seat
300k minimum would entail pretty much a total redrawing of metropolitans - even where a metropolitan is 300k+, it almost certainly has a neighbour that isn't.
It’s going to be a diabolical waste of money 300k is too large to be ‘local’ government And will be even more remote than it is already. Community identities will be lost by gerrymandering the Composition of the authority just look at Cheshire East and west where distinct local communities have been lost in a remote authority that no one has any affinity to. Apart from the timing being close to insanity, the only saving grace is that it will take years to agree
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
There is now a process for the foreign recognition of legal standing across the EU, however, it's used by very few people.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
We had one case in Edinburgh where Dutch lawyers came across and were given permission to represent Dutch fishermen who were accused of breaching EU fishing regulations in Scottish waters. It was an interesting novelty and for a time the Dutch lawyers with their somewhat distinctive garb were a feature. But that was 10-15 years ago now and it has never been repeated.
I am barely competent in Scots law, the idea that anyone would pay me for my views on any other law is an odd one.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
"We were alerted to a series of racist messages sent to a footballer today and after looking into them and conducting checks, we have arrested a boy," read a WM Police tweet.
"The 12-year-old from Solihull has been taken to custody. Thanks to everyone who raised it. Racism won't be tolerated."
Proportionate?
The messages were awful and it is absolutely right the Police have taken action but this is a child we are talking about. We really don't want to be like many US states who treat children like adults with crimes and misdemeanours. I am not sure what taking him into custody over name calling tweets achieves.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Yes already started in Surrey. Tories in SCC were trying to secretly push for a Surrey wide Unitary Authority which would have been the largest in the country and effectively a Conservative dictatorship. Currently the largest Unitary has a population of 570K. Surrey would be 1.2m.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
Surely the most sensible split for Surrey would be to have 3 councils:
North Surrey - Spelthorne, Runnymede, Elmbridge West Surrey - Woking, Guildford, Waverley, Surrey Heath East Surrey - Mole Valley, Epsom, Reigate, Tandridge
Epsom would probably be a better fit with he North Surrey Council but it is cut off by the dangling "tail" of Kingston
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
We should be pedantic. The treaty right to practise a profession on the strength of being certified in other countries is very rare. Apart from the EU, Australia and New Zealand have a similar access through the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement. I am not aware of others.
As you point out there national professional bodies do make recognition agreements between themselves.
How depressing to wake up to more Brexit bullshit from this government. So incompetent it couldn’t even maintain the EHIC card. We’re in for a tough ride.
As much as you complain we are leaving the EU and many things will change
However, maybe the UK and EU need to stop dancing around each other and start compromising before it is too late
I may not have voted for this nonsense, but why do the government have to make such a pigs ear of it?
It takes two to tango and the EU are not blameless
Since we asked to leave the responsibility to get this right is ours. The buck stops at number 10.
I’m getting old. I remember when Conservatives claimed to value taking responsibility for the decisions we make.
The conservative party will face re-election and the public can then vote them out if they are unhappy
Again, offloading responsibility.
No?
The government is responsible and the voters will judge them.
But if a negotiation breaks down it is rare the fault is all on one side
I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence Charles. In the business I ran I represented associations of companies who used particular products. I effectively created trade associations for them which I managed. They were always successfully arrangements, but I failed on several occasions in the negotiations to get the associations up and running in the first place. It was never because we couldn't agree. On several occasions I failed because the people I was negotiating with could not put the time in to get it up and running, which was ironic because the objective was to save them time in the long run. On one occasion I walked away from the negotiations because I realised I was dealing with idiots and didn't want to do a deal with them because I anticipated the pain of working with them was not worth the return. There of course might have been faults on my side and I am blind to them, but a struggle to find them and certainly in the case where the other party could not put the time in they agreed it was their fault.
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
There is now a process for the foreign recognition of legal standing across the EU, however, it's used by very few people.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
Nevertheless this access right must be valuable, otherwise the UK government wouldn't be pushing for it (and the EU rejecting it).
"We were alerted to a series of racist messages sent to a footballer today and after looking into them and conducting checks, we have arrested a boy," read a WM Police tweet.
"The 12-year-old from Solihull has been taken to custody. Thanks to everyone who raised it. Racism won't be tolerated."
Proportionate?
Surely sitting down with a 12-year-old and his parents or guardians would be somewhat more proportionate? Confiscating his phone for a month will do more to change his attitudes than anything the police can do, short of dragging him through the courts.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
And from Tory district councillors who would no longer have a seat
300k minimum would entail pretty much a total redrawing of metropolitans - even where a metropolitan is 300k+, it almost certainly has a neighbour that isn't.
I have to say I didn't really know the applicable populations. However there are only two current English local government area under 300,000 that are not special cases: Rutland, and Herefordshire.
Perhaps they are not touching the already unitary. But, if they did.
8/10 Greater Manchester councils are under 300k as are: 3/9 across W & S York's 18/32 London boroughs 3/5 on Merseyside 3/7 in West Midlands 8/9 in the NE metros
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Oh please let me be absorbed into either Doncaster or Rotherham with a slight boundary change - it'll save me a couple of hundred quid ^^;;;
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Yes already started in Surrey. Tories in SCC were trying to secretly push for a Surrey wide Unitary Authority which would have been the largest in the country and effectively a Conservative dictatorship. Currently the largest Unitary has a population of 570K. Surrey would be 1.2m.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
Surely the most sensible split for Surrey would be to have 3 councils:
North Surrey - Spelthorne, Runnymede, Elmbridge West Surrey - Woking, Guildford, Waverley, Surrey Heath East Surrey - Mole Valley, Epsom, Reigate, Tandridge
Epsom would probably be a better fit with he North Surrey Council but it is cut off by the dangling "tail" of Kingston
Several combinations have been suggested, I think all have been 3 councils which I think is the sensible solution. I think most of the Boroughs are in favour but have been pissed off by the Conservatives on SCC negotiating with Govt secretly. It has all suddenly blown up as it has come out into the open.
My other comment with the drive to unitary authorities is whether that would also mean mergers of existing UAs.
In Berkshire, when they got rid of the county council in the 1990s they made each of the districts its own UA. Bracknell is the smallest with only 122k residents.
So if you want consistency across the country, you could merge the 6 Berskhire UAs into 2.
I think locally people would be OK with merging with Bracknell Forest but adding in Slough... that would be really lighting the blue touchpaper!
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters.
Another example is Blackpool. This existing UA only has 139k people so you could make up the numbers by merging with Fylde and Wyre districts of Lancashire. This wouldn't go down well with people in Lytham St Annes though!
Not as bright this morning here as the BBC's weather forecast says it ought to be! Nor, quite, as warm!
Oh, they've had a bad run going back some months but it's hard to tell just how bad because they never publish results.
yeah, its become an in-joke with my mates as to how ropey the BBC weather app has been.
Their night-time temperatures have been very optimistic. Plenty of times recently I have fired up the moth traps on the basis of Beeb weather saying it was going to be 12-14 degrees, only to find it nearer to 5. And wind speeds have been higher than predicted. Neither are conducive to moths coming out to play....
Those two errors are connected. Suggests the boundary layer is being badly modelled overnight, probably not collapsing as quickly as it should do, because it's not losing enough LW radiation.
Something for the US scientists in charge of the GFS model to work on. Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF can enjoy superior Met Office forecasts because they're willing to pay for them.
The Met Office have an app and put video weather forecasts up on Facebook/YouTube. You don't have to use the BBC.
Duda's not going to leave the EU though. Now I know Poland is a net beneficiary and all but that was a potential ally inside the bloc for a party of the nationalist right which is what Johnson's Gov't broadly is.
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
There is now a process for the foreign recognition of legal standing across the EU, however, it's used by very few people.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
Nevertheless this access right must be valuable, otherwise the UK government wouldn't be pushing for it (and the EU rejecting it).
It is remarkable that four years on, proponents of Brexit have failed to articulate a single upside. Mostly it's been about pretending the many downsides don't exist. Usually with big changes you see pluses and minuses.
I am not including personal upsides for Johnson and more jobs for those that deal with red tape.
Ending free movement and replacing it with a points system, doing our own trade deals and greater control of our fishing waters
1)Only a benefit if you view it that way, particularly if you are a racist or a xenophobe - in practice we will see no reduction in net immigration, 2) completely pointless as we will have a weaker negotiating position and we will end up with a worse trading position 3) marginal benefit perhaps if you are a fisherman (who are wonderful people btw) but they and their industry account for a tiny tiny part of our economy.
Overall it is obvious that Brexit will be a very serious blow to our economy and country generally. Anyone with a brain (including yourself who voted remain, and Boris Johnson who didn't really believe in it either) know this. However, the idiots have it, and we must get on with it. We must follow the path of disenlightenment and try to make the most of it even if we don't own a fishing boat or a hedge fund.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes - that's a benefit, but it is probably short term and marginal. A shift to zero emissions vehicles will be far more significant (ZEV market share trebled to March 20 in 12 months), as perhaps will be a modal shift to bike/walking.
Is it offset, for example, by all these people working from home heating or cooling their houses all day rather than needing say 125 sqft of office heating / cooling each? How much energy do you use heating your house compared to commuting?
Car usage is already back up to 80-85% of previous on the govt number, despite 2-3 million or so in shielding plus all the others staying in.
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
The Wildlings north of the Blue Wall will actually like all that crap as it emphasises their otherness (and implicit superiority) to continental Europe which is what this is all about.
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Yes already started in Surrey. Tories in SCC were trying to secretly push for a Surrey wide Unitary Authority which would have been the largest in the country and effectively a Conservative dictatorship. Currently the largest Unitary has a population of 570K. Surrey would be 1.2m.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
Surely the most sensible split for Surrey would be to have 3 councils:
North Surrey - Spelthorne, Runnymede, Elmbridge West Surrey - Woking, Guildford, Waverley, Surrey Heath East Surrey - Mole Valley, Epsom, Reigate, Tandridge
Epsom would probably be a better fit with he North Surrey Council but it is cut off by the dangling "tail" of Kingston
Several combinations have been suggested, I think all have been 3 councils which I think is the sensible solution. I think most of the Boroughs are in favour but have been pissed off by the Conservatives on SCC negotiating with Govt secretly. It has all suddenly blown up as it has come out into the open.
So roads will no longer be managed at County level. Hmmm.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
There is a great deal of frantic scurrying in certain quarters.
The issue is this - trains are nice and environmental. When they are packed. When the only electric vehicles are trains.
Both those are looking a tad shakey.
There is going to have to be an adaption - also, if more people are remote working this means that transport usage with be overwhelmingly point-to-point.
How depressing to wake up to more Brexit bullshit from this government. So incompetent it couldn’t even maintain the EHIC card. We’re in for a tough ride.
As much as you complain we are leaving the EU and many things will change
However, maybe the UK and EU need to stop dancing around each other and start compromising before it is too late
I may not have voted for this nonsense, but why do the government have to make such a pigs ear of it?
It takes two to tango and the EU are not blameless
Since we asked to leave the responsibility to get this right is ours. The buck stops at number 10.
I’m getting old. I remember when Conservatives claimed to value taking responsibility for the decisions we make.
The conservative party will face re-election and the public can then vote them out if they are unhappy
Again, offloading responsibility.
No?
The government is responsible and the voters will judge them.
But if a negotiation breaks down it is rare the fault is all on one side
I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence Charles. In the business I ran I represented associations of companies who used particular products. I effectively created trade associations for them which I managed. They were always successfully arrangements, but I failed on several occasions in the negotiations to get the associations up and running in the first place. It was never because we couldn't agree. On several occasions I failed because the people I was negotiating with could not put the time in to get it up and running, which was ironic because the objective was to save them time in the long run. On one occasion I walked away from the negotiations because I realised I was dealing with idiots and didn't want to do a deal with them because I anticipated the pain of working with them was not worth the return. There of course might have been faults on my side and I am blind to them, but a struggle to find them and certainly in the case where the other party could not put the time in they agreed it was their fault.
The issue with Brexit negotiations is, actually, that it is all downside. The best thing is obviously not to go there in the first place. That ship has sailed. In which case you should aim to limit the damage. Problem is that the government, ideological Brexiteers to a man and woman, don't acknowledge the downsides (or if they do it's all the fault of the EU/Theresa May/Remainers who are all the same people from their PoV). They can't negotiate on a damage limitation basis because that implies Brexit is damage to be limited. So the negotiations are doomed to failure, I think. A Deal may happen (I think it will) but it will be a damaging one that no-one will be happy with.
Duda's not going to leave the EU though. Now I know Poland is a net beneficiary and all but that was a potential ally inside the bloc for a party of the nationalist right which is what Johnson's Gov't broadly is.
Dude's party is in the ECR in the European Parliament Cameron took the Tories into, his opponent was in the EPP the Tories were previously in
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
It is jobs that will emigrate because remote workers can work remotely from Romania or any other country you care to name.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
My other comment with the drive to unitary authorities is whether that would also mean mergers of existing UAs.
In Berkshire, when they got rid of the county council in the 1990s they made each of the districts its own UA. Bracknell is the smallest with only 122k residents.
So if you want consistency across the country, you could merge the 6 Berskhire UAs into 2.
I think locally people would be OK with merging with Bracknell Forest but adding in Slough... that would be really lighting the blue touchpaper!
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters.
Another example is Blackpool. This existing UA only has 139k people so you could make up the numbers by merging with Fylde and Wyre districts of Lancashire. This wouldn't go down well with people in Lytham St Annes though!
There are places worse than Blackpool. Darlington only has 106,000 people so in theory should be merged with Stockton.
However Darlington was never part of Cleveland so we have a different police force and NHS than the rest of the region and there is no way any Government (sane or insane) is going to give Cleveland police greater responsibility..
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
Weren’t we told nothing would change? If this comes to pass it will give second home owners with houses in the EU problems with nipping back and forth with the dog and relying on the EHIC card. No idea what annual travel,insurance for a 60+ With blood pressure and diabetes is going to cost coupled with mobile calls back home.
On topic, thanks for the piece Mike. Interestingly, the Arizona numbers for the GOP in the last couple of polls has been actually ok after a number of earlier polls showing both Biden and Mark Kelly (for the Senate) building a lead - there has been a tie and a +4 for the GOP in the last two polls for the Presidential election and, while Kelly has a +4 lead in this poll, that is way down on some of the leads previously reported. That is a bit out of kilter with the line that worries about CV are impacting Trump, although for Kelly he might be starting to be impacted by this story:
Secondly, there are some signs that conservative Democrats might be becoming more uneasy about the direction the party is going. A lot has been talked about the Never Trumpers on the Republican side but there could be an issue for Biden from conservative Democrats with 12% of them saying they may vote for Trump. :
What makes this block important is that they tend to be overrepresented in the swing states. There is also some sign that the defund the Police line is causing some issues for candidates in the Senate races in some of the more conservative states such as Iowa
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters councillors.
Fixed that for you. I guess I live in the rough bit of Surrey so perhaps not nearly as precious as those who live south of the A3/A31.
I'm sure some of the councillors ill be upset too.
The Tories almost certainly lost the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council due to upset in Christchurch about the merger (and a dent was taken out of Chope's majority at the GE despite being a very Brexitty seat)
My other comment with the drive to unitary authorities is whether that would also mean mergers of existing UAs.
In Berkshire, when they got rid of the county council in the 1990s they made each of the districts its own UA. Bracknell is the smallest with only 122k residents.
So if you want consistency across the country, you could merge the 6 Berskhire UAs into 2.
I think locally people would be OK with merging with Bracknell Forest but adding in Slough... that would be really lighting the blue touchpaper!
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters.
Another example is Blackpool. This existing UA only has 139k people so you could make up the numbers by merging with Fylde and Wyre districts of Lancashire. This wouldn't go down well with people in Lytham St Annes though!
Have been reading many comments 're this topic. Does anyone have a why? And what is it about this country that we have spent 50 years redrawing LA boundaries?
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
Not just multiple occupancy. I also need to trust you not to take a screenshot of my embarrassing file and post it on Instagram. More subtly, you must remember not to say anything that will trigger Alexa or similar devices to start actively listening and uploading audio directly to Jeff Bezos.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
It is jobs that will emigrate because remote workers can work remotely from Romania or any other country you care to name.
Many white-collar jobs still require work in teams, and I can see companies saving office space by having teams only work in the office a few days per month, which still allows the social and networking aspect of everyone knowing each other in person that doesn't occur with purely remote teams.
People will move further from their offices though, depending on how much time they need to spend there, and yes some will choose to live in another country but still work in the same place as before.
Jobs that can be exported, mostly have been already. With varying results, as any bank who sent their call centre of software dev teams to India will tell you. The trend there is bringing the jobs back to the UK.
"It is outrageous that Germany should now seek what amounts to reparations from the U.K. for having the audacity to want to break free of the Teutonic chains
"That allowed the small-minded Lilliputians to bind us like Gulliver to the mast of the sinking ship that is the EU. It also precipitated the resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson, to their credit, from the May government.
"On acquiring the top job following the disastrous European election results, Johnson and his government managed to release some of those bindings — most importantly from membership of the Customs Union. He also had the courage to call and win a general election in December 2019, resulting in an 80-seat majority in parliament and changing the terms of the debate.
"But the timing and the politics were such that Johnson had no alternative but to accept the Withdrawal Agreement largely as it stood. In the end there was an exit door from the EU, but the handle was smeared with the EU diplomatic equivalent of Novichok."
Mutual recognition of professional standards is not uncommon
Edit: but I suppose it is too much to ask for to expect the EU lawyers to break down non tariff barriers that protect EU lawyers from competition
Is it common? Which countries allow lawyers to practise based on their registration in other countries? I would have thought the EU was nearly unique.
I don’t know lawyers specifically but certainly doctors, nurses, vets and accountants all have a system in place.
Something is either unique or it is not. OK, pedantic.
However, so far as my (ex) professional registration is concerned, I could have registered to work in other countries, my qualification being recognised by the relevant bodies.And EU pharmacists could, and did, register here. However I couldn't go across to Germany without re-registering, and likewise a German or Spanish pharmacist couldn't practice here without first registering. And registering is quite expensive.
There is now a process for the foreign recognition of legal standing across the EU, however, it's used by very few people.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
Nevertheless this access right must be valuable, otherwise the UK government wouldn't be pushing for it (and the EU rejecting it).
I don't know what access means in this context.
"I Mr/Ms UK Lawyer can do my lawyerly stuff in France/Austria/Romania etc because this treaty says I can."
That right is valuable enough, I assume mainly for City lawyers doing international contracts, that the UK government is very anxious to retain it after Brexit.
Good news for Man City and anyone else looking to be acquired in the future. Bad news for UEFA and the idea that they can police the game's finances.
FFP was only ever about protecting the existing cartel and stopping competition. City were always confident that a proper court would find for them. All the UEFA committees were simply doing the bidding of Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Man Utd etc. I believe that Gill (United's ex-Chief exec ) even chaired one of them.
@Cyclefree -- HMG has just opened applications for its Happy Meal voucherless voucher scheme.
Restaurants, bars, cafes and other establishments who use the scheme will offer a 50% reduction, up to a maximum of £10 per person, to all diners who eat and/or drink-in throughout August.
Customers do not need a voucher as participating establishments will just remove the discount from their bill. Businesses simply reclaim the discounted amount through an online service, supported by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Claims can be made on a weekly basis and will be paid into bank accounts within five working days. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-invites-hospitality-industry-to-register-for-eat-out-to-help-out
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
"It is outrageous that Germany should now seek what amounts to reparations from the U.K. for having the audacity to want to break free of the Teutonic chains
"That allowed the small-minded Lilliputians to bind us like Gulliver to the mast of the sinking ship that is the EU. It also precipitated the resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson, to their credit, from the May government.
"On acquiring the top job following the disastrous European election results, Johnson and his government managed to release some of those bindings — most importantly from membership of the Customs Union. He also had the courage to call and win a general election in December 2019, resulting in an 80-seat majority in parliament and changing the terms of the debate.
"But the timing and the politics were such that Johnson had no alternative but to accept the Withdrawal Agreement largely as it stood. In the end there was an exit door from the EU, but the handle was smeared with the EU diplomatic equivalent of Novichok."
IT also ends
"The battle to leave the EU is coming to an end. The battle for Britain is just beginning — and we are about to find out if Johnson is more Churchill or Halifax."
I don't think anyone has picked up on this from last week but the Government has decided that they wish to push ahead with making all local councils Unitary and outlined minimum (300,000 population) and preferred (400,000) sizes.
The bun fights in Surrey and North Yorkshire amongst other places are going to be a sight to behold.
Yes already started in Surrey. Tories in SCC were trying to secretly push for a Surrey wide Unitary Authority which would have been the largest in the country and effectively a Conservative dictatorship. Currently the largest Unitary has a population of 570K. Surrey would be 1.2m.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
Surely the most sensible split for Surrey would be to have 3 councils:
North Surrey - Spelthorne, Runnymede, Elmbridge West Surrey - Woking, Guildford, Waverley, Surrey Heath East Surrey - Mole Valley, Epsom, Reigate, Tandridge
Epsom would probably be a better fit with he North Surrey Council but it is cut off by the dangling "tail" of Kingston
Several combinations have been suggested, I think all have been 3 councils which I think is the sensible solution. I think most of the Boroughs are in favour but have been pissed off by the Conservatives on SCC negotiating with Govt secretly. It has all suddenly blown up as it has come out into the open.
So roads will no longer be managed at County level. Hmmm.
Most people haven't a clue what service is provided by what authority when split across two.
Invariably the authority is either too big or too small to provide the appropriate service anyway and often subcontracts up/dpwn.
Unitary Authorities are not a panacea regarding this, but it help and at least you have only one authority and less admin.
And roads are a classic example. Oxted and Camberley are both in Surrey but regarding a cul-de-sac on a housing estate they might as well be on different planets.
It is all compromise at what is the best size and then still working up or down depending upon how local the issue is (A3 or cul-de-sac).
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
Not just multiple occupancy. I also need to trust you not to take a screenshot of my embarrassing file and post it on Instagram. More subtly, you must remember not to say anything that will trigger Alexa or similar devices to start actively listening and uploading audio directly to Jeff Bezos.
Offices in the home have always been a trend.
It is just an extra separated room on top of the open plan space, that is an office / study, then becomes a bedroom for a relative, then your own dotage.
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
Weren’t we told nothing would change? If this comes to pass it will give second home owners with houses in the EU problems with nipping back and forth with the dog and relying on the EHIC card. No idea what annual travel,insurance for a 60+ With blood pressure and diabetes is going to cost coupled with mobile calls back home.
No we weren't told nothing would change. Don't make up nonsense.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
It is jobs that will emigrate because remote workers can work remotely from Romania or any other country you care to name.
Many white-collar jobs still require work in teams, and I can see companies saving office space by having teams only work in the office a few days per month, which still allows the social and networking aspect of everyone knowing each other in person that doesn't occur with purely remote teams.
People will move further from their offices though, depending on how much time they need to spend there, and yes some will choose to live in another country but still work in the same place as before.
Jobs that can be exported, mostly have been already. With varying results, as any bank who sent their call centre of software dev teams to India will tell you. The trend there is bringing the jobs back to the UK.
I keep banging on about this.
It's not the wages that are important.
It's the productivity cost - how much you pay to get x amount of work done.
At one company I worked at, they did a formal evaluation of software development across various countries they had centres in. Bulgaria and London were tied in first place as the cheapest - by results. India was the most expensive.
This is because productivity is a function of the following
1) Cultural infrastructure 2) Legal " 3) Financial " 4) Industrial " 5) Educational " 6) Social Services " 7) Medical "
etc.
The skill of the individual is a part of the equation - but may not even be the majority of the answer.
The strange thing I find is that you get people on the Left arguing against the above - "All jobs will go to low cost x"
It's strange, since the above is an argument that the NHS (for example) is a benefit to productivity - and hence competativeness.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
Not just multiple occupancy. I also need to trust you not to take a screenshot of my embarrassing file and post it on Instagram. More subtly, you must remember not to say anything that will trigger Alexa or similar devices to start actively listening and uploading audio directly to Jeff Bezos.
Offices in the home have always been a trend.
It is just an extra separated room on top of the open plan space, that is an office / study, then becomes a bedroom for a relative, then your own dotage.
People Are Bad - this is the orthodoxy.
How can we possibly build larger houses to accommodate this? The world would end or something.
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not idiotic at all it's only logical and if you can't see it then you're an idiot.
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
My other comment with the drive to unitary authorities is whether that would also mean mergers of existing UAs.
In Berkshire, when they got rid of the county council in the 1990s they made each of the districts its own UA. Bracknell is the smallest with only 122k residents.
So if you want consistency across the country, you could merge the 6 Berskhire UAs into 2.
I think locally people would be OK with merging with Bracknell Forest but adding in Slough... that would be really lighting the blue touchpaper!
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters.
Another example is Blackpool. This existing UA only has 139k people so you could make up the numbers by merging with Fylde and Wyre districts of Lancashire. This wouldn't go down well with people in Lytham St Annes though!
Have been reading many comments 're this topic. Does anyone have a why? And what is it about this country that we have spent 50 years redrawing LA boundaries?
Why do people get upset?
Some of it is plain snobbery. For example, a few years ago some residents in Windsor asked Royal Mail for a Windsor and Maidenhead postcode as they didn't like having a Slough postcode
Some of it is that people in a smaller area fear that they will be outvoted by a bigger area, and have more development foisted on them
Some of it is people living in a lower council tax council not wanting to see their council tax go up
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
Weren’t we told nothing would change? If this comes to pass it will give second home owners with houses in the EU problems with nipping back and forth with the dog and relying on the EHIC card. No idea what annual travel,insurance for a 60+ With blood pressure and diabetes is going to cost coupled with mobile calls back home.
No we weren't told nothing would change. Don't make up nonsense.
We were told all our existing rights such as EHIC and pet passports would not change as we held all the cards and the EU would let us keep these benefits. Telling people they would lose them was deemed project fear. Now they may still negotiate the status quo but it’s looking increasingly unlikely.
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
Weren’t we told nothing would change? If this comes to pass it will give second home owners with houses in the EU problems with nipping back and forth with the dog and relying on the EHIC card. No idea what annual travel,insurance for a 60+ With blood pressure and diabetes is going to cost coupled with mobile calls back home.
Two retired British couples in the next village to our place in Brittany avaient foutu le camp instead of waiting to see what it all meant. Both houses are still unsold though.
How depressing to wake up to more Brexit bullshit from this government. So incompetent it couldn’t even maintain the EHIC card. We’re in for a tough ride.
As much as you complain we are leaving the EU and many things will change
However, maybe the UK and EU need to stop dancing around each other and start compromising before it is too late
I may not have voted for this nonsense, but why do the government have to make such a pigs ear of it?
It takes two to tango and the EU are not blameless
Since we asked to leave the responsibility to get this right is ours. The buck stops at number 10.
I’m getting old. I remember when Conservatives claimed to value taking responsibility for the decisions we make.
The conservative party will face re-election and the public can then vote them out if they are unhappy
Again, offloading responsibility.
No?
The government is responsible and the voters will judge them.
But if a negotiation breaks down it is rare the fault is all on one side
I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence Charles. In the business I ran I represented associations of companies who used particular products. I effectively created trade associations for them which I managed. They were always successfully arrangements, but I failed on several occasions in the negotiations to get the associations up and running in the first place. It was never because we couldn't agree. On several occasions I failed because the people I was negotiating with could not put the time in to get it up and running, which was ironic because the objective was to save them time in the long run. On one occasion I walked away from the negotiations because I realised I was dealing with idiots and didn't want to do a deal with them because I anticipated the pain of working with them was not worth the return. There of course might have been faults on my side and I am blind to them, but a struggle to find them and certainly in the case where the other party could not put the time in they agreed it was their fault.
The issue with Brexit negotiations is, actually, that it is all downside. The best thing is obviously not to go there in the first place. That ship has sailed. In which case you should aim to limit the damage. Problem is that the government, ideological Brexiteers to a man and woman, don't acknowledge the downsides (or if they do it's all the fault of the EU/Theresa May/Remainers who are all the same people from their PoV). They can't negotiate on a damage limitation basis because that implies Brexit is damage to be limited. So the negotiations are doomed to failure, I think. A Deal may happen (I think it will) but it will be a damaging one that no-one will be happy with.
For those who believe Brexit is a good thing what you refer to as damage is actually a good thing to be maximised not limited. Because what you see as damage we see as opportunity.
How depressing to wake up to more Brexit bullshit from this government. So incompetent it couldn’t even maintain the EHIC card. We’re in for a tough ride.
As much as you complain we are leaving the EU and many things will change
However, maybe the UK and EU need to stop dancing around each other and start compromising before it is too late
I may not have voted for this nonsense, but why do the government have to make such a pigs ear of it?
It takes two to tango and the EU are not blameless
Since we asked to leave the responsibility to get this right is ours. The buck stops at number 10.
I’m getting old. I remember when Conservatives claimed to value taking responsibility for the decisions we make.
The conservative party will face re-election and the public can then vote them out if they are unhappy
Again, offloading responsibility.
No?
The government is responsible and the voters will judge them.
But if a negotiation breaks down it is rare the fault is all on one side
I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence Charles. In the business I ran I represented associations of companies who used particular products. I effectively created trade associations for them which I managed. They were always successfully arrangements, but I failed on several occasions in the negotiations to get the associations up and running in the first place. It was never because we couldn't agree. On several occasions I failed because the people I was negotiating with could not put the time in to get it up and running, which was ironic because the objective was to save them time in the long run. On one occasion I walked away from the negotiations because I realised I was dealing with idiots and didn't want to do a deal with them because I anticipated the pain of working with them was not worth the return. There of course might have been faults on my side and I am blind to them, but a struggle to find them and certainly in the case where the other party could not put the time in they agreed it was their fault.
The issue with Brexit negotiations is, actually, that it is all downside. The best thing is obviously not to go there in the first place. That ship has sailed. In which case you should aim to limit the damage. Problem is that the government, ideological Brexiteers to a man and woman, don't acknowledge the downsides (or if they do it's all the fault of the EU/Theresa May/Remainers who are all the same people from their PoV). They can't negotiate on a damage limitation basis because that implies Brexit is damage to be limited. So the negotiations are doomed to failure, I think. A Deal may happen (I think it will) but it will be a damaging one that no-one will be happy with.
For those who believe Brexit is a good thing what you refer to as damage is actually a good thing to be maximised not limited. Because what you see as damage we see as opportunity.
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not idiotic at all it's only logical and if you can't see it then you're an idiot.
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
It's a power grab to get round the problem that a UK-wide Brexit is incompatible with the domestic constitutional settlement.
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not idiotic at all it's only logical and if you can't see it then you're an idiot.
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
A level playing field protects Scotland at least as much as England, so there is a case to be made. Telling the other government, "shut up, we decide what goes on here" isn't making the case nor does it win hearts and minds.
Johnson has overseen a swing from clear support in Scotland for the Union to a clear wish to leave. This will bump up support for independence even further.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
Yes, companies like banks will still need to host call centres themselves, as many people will be unable to work securely.
In the medium term, people moving further away from the largest city centres should make accommodation more affordable.
How depressing to wake up to more Brexit bullshit from this government. So incompetent it couldn’t even maintain the EHIC card. We’re in for a tough ride.
As much as you complain we are leaving the EU and many things will change
However, maybe the UK and EU need to stop dancing around each other and start compromising before it is too late
I may not have voted for this nonsense, but why do the government have to make such a pigs ear of it?
It takes two to tango and the EU are not blameless
Since we asked to leave the responsibility to get this right is ours. The buck stops at number 10.
I’m getting old. I remember when Conservatives claimed to value taking responsibility for the decisions we make.
The conservative party will face re-election and the public can then vote them out if they are unhappy
Again, offloading responsibility.
No?
The government is responsible and the voters will judge them.
But if a negotiation breaks down it is rare the fault is all on one side
I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence Charles. In the business I ran I represented associations of companies who used particular products. I effectively created trade associations for them which I managed. They were always successfully arrangements, but I failed on several occasions in the negotiations to get the associations up and running in the first place. It was never because we couldn't agree. On several occasions I failed because the people I was negotiating with could not put the time in to get it up and running, which was ironic because the objective was to save them time in the long run. On one occasion I walked away from the negotiations because I realised I was dealing with idiots and didn't want to do a deal with them because I anticipated the pain of working with them was not worth the return. There of course might have been faults on my side and I am blind to them, but a struggle to find them and certainly in the case where the other party could not put the time in they agreed it was their fault.
The issue with Brexit negotiations is, actually, that it is all downside. The best thing is obviously not to go there in the first place. That ship has sailed. In which case you should aim to limit the damage. Problem is that the government, ideological Brexiteers to a man and woman, don't acknowledge the downsides (or if they do it's all the fault of the EU/Theresa May/Remainers who are all the same people from their PoV). They can't negotiate on a damage limitation basis because that implies Brexit is damage to be limited. So the negotiations are doomed to failure, I think. A Deal may happen (I think it will) but it will be a damaging one that no-one will be happy with.
For those who believe Brexit is a good thing what you refer to as damage is actually a good thing to be maximised not limited. Because what you see as damage we see as opportunity.
I agree that is what you and the Uk Government do think. That is why the negotiations are doomed to failure
( Just like the "Oven Ready" deal that was a great negotiating success for Johnson unlike dithering Remainer Theresa May and her crap deal. But it now turns out it wasn't so tasty after all - and in fact all the fault of Theresa May, even tough this deal was a different one. )
"It is outrageous that Germany should now seek what amounts to reparations from the U.K. for having the audacity to want to break free of the Teutonic chains
"That allowed the small-minded Lilliputians to bind us like Gulliver to the mast of the sinking ship that is the EU. It also precipitated the resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson, to their credit, from the May government.
"On acquiring the top job following the disastrous European election results, Johnson and his government managed to release some of those bindings — most importantly from membership of the Customs Union. He also had the courage to call and win a general election in December 2019, resulting in an 80-seat majority in parliament and changing the terms of the debate.
"But the timing and the politics were such that Johnson had no alternative but to accept the Withdrawal Agreement largely as it stood. In the end there was an exit door from the EU, but the handle was smeared with the EU diplomatic equivalent of Novichok."
IT also ends
"The battle to leave the EU is coming to an end. The battle for Britain is just beginning — and we are about to find out if Johnson is more Churchill or Halifax."
We've been taken hostage by intellectually subnormal Little Englanders who have never outgrown the WW2 comics they read as children. It is utterly pathetic.
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not idiotic at all it's only logical and if you can't see it then you're an idiot.
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
It's a power grab to get round the problem that a UK-wide Brexit is incompatible with the domestic constitutional settlement.
How is it a power grab when they didn't have the power in the first place?
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Indeed. After the last recession, increasing demand was met with immigration of relatively low-skilled employees, instead of being met with increasing wages and investment in technology as one might expect.
Hence the dire productivity figures, and the disenchantment in many working-class communities that led to the Brexit vote.
On the upside, there is no (other) way that humanity would have organised to reduce emissions so quickly and dramatically to tackle climate change. It may be temporary (although I would expect an after effect) but it will at least provide some interesting data to calibrate the impact of other potential interventions.
What's changed?
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
The best thing for the environment this year, by miles, is that everyone's stopped commuting.
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
Yes, unless people start to abandon big cities and live in the countryside where they have to drive to go to the shops, etc.
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
Indeed so. It's taken until everyone was forced home, for the bosses to wake up to how much better the remote working technology has become over the past decade or two.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
Yes, much like 9/11 killed the old WeAlwaysFlyBAFullPrice culture.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
Yes, companies like banks will still need to host call centres themselves, as many people will be unable to work securely.
In the medium term, people moving further away from the largest city centres should make accommodation more affordable.
All true.
However, there will need to be some serious changes in policy.
Current UK policy is entirely based on cramming people into smaller and smaller flats, and practically mandating usage of public transport.
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not idiotic at all it's only logical and if you can't see it then you're an idiot.
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
It's a power grab to get round the problem that a UK-wide Brexit is incompatible with the domestic constitutional settlement.
How is it a power grab when they didn't have the power in the first place?
"Can you help us? We've left the European Union by mistake."
Weren’t we told nothing would change? If this comes to pass it will give second home owners with houses in the EU problems with nipping back and forth with the dog and relying on the EHIC card. No idea what annual travel,insurance for a 60+ With blood pressure and diabetes is going to cost coupled with mobile calls back home.
No we weren't told nothing would change. Don't make up nonsense.
We were told all our existing rights such as EHIC and pet passports would not change as we held all the cards and the EU would let us keep these benefits. Telling people they would lose them was deemed project fear. Now they may still negotiate the status quo but it’s looking increasingly unlikely.
Comments
All the analysis I have been listening to suggests that corona lockdown etc might only provide a tiny extra blip.
In the UK we have reduced our C02 emissions by well over 3% each year on average (geometric mean) in the last decade; we are achieving what we need to continue to achieve. source: carbon brief.
I've heard lots of usual suspects demanding that Corona proves that we must do what they were already demanding that we do, but I don't attach much weight to such.
The best thing for the environment this year has been the reintroduction of a comprehensible home energy package last week.
There may be perception changes about food miles, allotments etc; I am not sure Corona has driven that.
If I am an English qualified lawyer, it's likely that I am hired for that knowledge in Germany. It's not clear to me how I could practise German law up to a standard anyone would want to pay me for, without a body of practice similar to becoming a German lawyer.
I'm all in favour of Unitary Authorities for numerous reasons, but they must be a sensible size eg 3 x a Borough for sensible representation locally.
"We were alerted to a series of racist messages sent to a footballer today and after looking into them and conducting checks, we have arrested a boy," read a WM Police tweet.
"The 12-year-old from Solihull has been taken to custody. Thanks to everyone who raised it. Racism won't be tolerated."
Proportionate?
I am barely competent in Scots law, the idea that anyone would pay me for my views on any other law is an odd one.
North Surrey - Spelthorne, Runnymede, Elmbridge
West Surrey - Woking, Guildford, Waverley, Surrey Heath
East Surrey - Mole Valley, Epsom, Reigate, Tandridge
Epsom would probably be a better fit with he North Surrey Council but it is cut off by the dangling "tail" of Kingston
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1282590023875989504?s=20
The best thing we can do for the environment, going forward, is to keep more people working remotely for more of the time.
As you point out there national professional bodies do make recognition agreements between themselves.
Confiscating his phone for a month will do more to change his attitudes than anything the police can do, short of dragging him through the courts.
8/10 Greater Manchester councils are under 300k
as are:
3/9 across W & S York's
18/32 London boroughs
3/5 on Merseyside
3/7 in West Midlands
8/9 in the NE metros
Greater working from home has so many benefits to society, I've been thinking for twenty years that it should become the new normal, where the job allows it.
For many, it means higher productivity, lower stress, greater life satisfaction and so on. It means that house prices become more equal across the country, public transport is less crowded at peak times and so on and so forth.
But, obviously, it's not for everybody.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1282450610340663296
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1205252161321472004
In Berkshire, when they got rid of the county council in the 1990s they made each of the districts its own UA. Bracknell is the smallest with only 122k residents.
So if you want consistency across the country, you could merge the 6 Berskhire UAs into 2.
I think locally people would be OK with merging with Bracknell Forest but adding in Slough... that would be really lighting the blue touchpaper!
The danger with moving to UAs is that it may make sense economically but it risks upsetting a lot of Tory voters.
Another example is Blackpool. This existing UA only has 139k people so you could make up the numbers by merging with Fylde and Wyre districts of Lancashire. This wouldn't go down well with people in Lytham St Annes though!
Something for the US scientists in charge of the GFS model to work on. Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF can enjoy superior Met Office forecasts because they're willing to pay for them.
The Met Office have an app and put video weather forecasts up on Facebook/YouTube. You don't have to use the BBC.
Overall it is obvious that Brexit will be a very serious blow to our economy and country generally. Anyone with a brain (including yourself who voted remain, and Boris Johnson who didn't really believe in it either) know this. However, the idiots have it, and we must get on with it. We must follow the path of disenlightenment and try to make the most of it even if we don't own a fishing boat or a hedge fund.
Is it offset, for example, by all these people working from home heating or cooling their houses all day rather than needing say 125 sqft of office heating / cooling each? How much energy do you use heating your house compared to commuting?
Car usage is already back up to 80-85% of previous on the govt number, despite 2-3 million or so in shielding plus all the others staying in.
Even if companies start to work flexibly, with teams spending one week in three in the office, or a few days a month depending on how they arrange themselves, there would be a massive positive effect on the environment, on quality of life and personal savings.
It wouldn't be good for train companies (although many people would live further away if the commute wasn't daily), and wouldn't be good for the minimum-wage cafe workers in central London, nor the property speculators - but the overall impact would be positive.
Government might not see it though, as the raw GDP numbers would be down, GDP per capita is going to be a much better measure in the next few years if we see net emigration of unemployed service workers in cities.
The issue is this - trains are nice and environmental. When they are packed. When the only electric vehicles are trains.
Both those are looking a tad shakey.
There is going to have to be an adaption - also, if more people are remote working this means that transport usage with be overwhelmingly point-to-point.
Trains are hub-and-spoke.
A major issue for home working is that many people do not live in suitable accommodation. Do you want the person answering the phone to sort out your banking issues to bring up your bank details in the middle of a house in multiple occupancy?
About 15% of the staff, where I work have a serious issue with this. Some places it is much worse.
It is very nice for those who have a study or a nice shiny new garden office....
Methinks that the next trend in house design will be offices in the house....
However Darlington was never part of Cleveland so we have a different police force and NHS than the rest of the region and there is no way any Government (sane or insane) is going to give Cleveland police greater responsibility..
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/09/kelly_helped_secure_chinese_tech_giants_stake_in_firm.html
Secondly, there are some signs that conservative Democrats might be becoming more uneasy about the direction the party is going. A lot has been talked about the Never Trumpers on the Republican side but there could be an issue for Biden from conservative Democrats with 12% of them saying they may vote for Trump. :
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/07/yougov_polling_biden_skeptics_are_moderate_democrats_143640.html
What makes this block important is that they tend to be overrepresented in the swing states. There is also some sign that the defund the Police line is causing some issues for candidates in the Senate races in some of the more conservative states such as Iowa
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/11/defund-police_push_has_key_dem_candidates_on_defense.html
The Tories almost certainly lost the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council due to upset in Christchurch about the merger (and a dent was taken out of Chope's majority at the GE despite being a very Brexitty seat)
Does anyone have a why? And what is it about this country that we have spent 50 years redrawing LA boundaries?
People will move further from their offices though, depending on how much time they need to spend there, and yes some will choose to live in another country but still work in the same place as before.
Jobs that can be exported, mostly have been already. With varying results, as any bank who sent their call centre of software dev teams to India will tell you. The trend there is bringing the jobs back to the UK.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-uk-britain-boris-johnson-must-ditch-the-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-deal/
"It is outrageous that Germany should now seek what amounts to reparations from the U.K. for having the audacity to want to break free of the Teutonic chains
"That allowed the small-minded Lilliputians to bind us like Gulliver to the mast of the sinking ship that is the EU. It also precipitated the resignations of David Davis and Boris Johnson, to their credit, from the May government.
"On acquiring the top job following the disastrous European election results, Johnson and his government managed to release some of those bindings — most importantly from membership of the Customs Union. He also had the courage to call and win a general election in December 2019, resulting in an 80-seat majority in parliament and changing the terms of the debate.
"But the timing and the politics were such that Johnson had no alternative but to accept the Withdrawal Agreement largely as it stood. In the end there was an exit door from the EU, but the handle was smeared with the EU diplomatic equivalent of Novichok."
That right is valuable enough, I assume mainly for City lawyers doing international contracts, that the UK government is very anxious to retain it after Brexit.
Restaurants, bars, cafes and other establishments who use the scheme will offer a 50% reduction, up to a maximum of £10 per person, to all diners who eat and/or drink-in throughout August.
Customers do not need a voucher as participating establishments will just remove the discount from their bill. Businesses simply reclaim the discounted amount through an online service, supported by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Claims can be made on a weekly basis and will be paid into bank accounts within five working days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmrc-invites-hospitality-industry-to-register-for-eat-out-to-help-out
"The battle to leave the EU is coming to an end. The battle for Britain is just beginning — and we are about to find out if Johnson is more Churchill or Halifax."
Invariably the authority is either too big or too small to provide the appropriate service anyway and often subcontracts up/dpwn.
Unitary Authorities are not a panacea regarding this, but it help and at least you have only one authority and less admin.
And roads are a classic example. Oxted and Camberley are both in Surrey but regarding a cul-de-sac on a housing estate they might as well be on different planets.
It is all compromise at what is the best size and then still working up or down depending upon how local the issue is (A3 or cul-de-sac).
It is just an extra separated room on top of the open plan space, that is an office / study, then becomes a bedroom for a relative, then your own dotage.
https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1282603161665130496
The man who hitched his career to Brexit, hops to quench the desire for Indy by executive fiat...
Fucking idiot.
It's not the wages that are important.
It's the productivity cost - how much you pay to get x amount of work done.
At one company I worked at, they did a formal evaluation of software development across various countries they had centres in. Bulgaria and London were tied in first place as the cheapest - by results. India was the most expensive.
This is because productivity is a function of the following
1) Cultural infrastructure
2) Legal "
3) Financial "
4) Industrial "
5) Educational "
6) Social Services "
7) Medical "
etc.
The skill of the individual is a part of the equation - but may not even be the majority of the answer.
The strange thing I find is that you get people on the Left arguing against the above - "All jobs will go to low cost x"
It's strange, since the above is an argument that the NHS (for example) is a benefit to productivity - and hence competativeness.
How can we possibly build larger houses to accommodate this? The world would end or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o0rAvZtM7w
Issues that were not devolved pre Brexit by and large will be issues that can't be devolved post Brexit.
How is the UK government for instance supposed to agree a trade deal with LPF for State Aid with the EU if the State Aid issue has been devolved to Holyrood?
Don't be an idiot. These issues are not issues for devolution which is why they weren't devolved within the EU either.
If Holyrood wants control of these issues then they only way to achieve that would be to become independent but NOT join the EU.
Some of it is plain snobbery. For example, a few years ago some residents in Windsor asked Royal Mail for a Windsor and Maidenhead postcode as they didn't like having a Slough postcode
Some of it is that people in a smaller area fear that they will be outvoted by a bigger area, and have more development foisted on them
Some of it is people living in a lower council tax council not wanting to see their council tax go up
Johnson has overseen a swing from clear support in Scotland for the Union to a clear wish to leave. This will bump up support for independence even further.
In the medium term, people moving further away from the largest city centres should make accommodation more affordable.
( Just like the "Oven Ready" deal that was a great negotiating success for Johnson unlike dithering Remainer Theresa May and her crap deal. But it now turns out it wasn't so tasty after all - and in fact all the fault of Theresa May, even tough this deal was a different one. )
employees, instead of being met with increasing wages and investment in technology as one might expect.
Hence the dire productivity figures, and the disenchantment in many working-class communities that led to the Brexit vote.
However, there will need to be some serious changes in policy.
Current UK policy is entirely based on cramming people into smaller and smaller flats, and practically mandating usage of public transport.
25 years? How the time has flown.
On another level that really doesn't help the rest of the industry recover...