It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Edit - although I suppose these powers were probably moot anyway in light of the Irish Constitution of 1937, which gave the Irish a President and effectively turned it into a republic in all but name.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Was that ever a serious prospect? Staying neutral was, but siding with Germany?
German almost became an official language of the US in the 1790s, alongside (rather than instead of, as is sometimes erroneously claimed) English. And there were undoubted German sympathies amongst the GOP and leading businessmen of the time. But there isn’t really a credible scenario in which the US would have taken a different side in WW2 that doesn’t involve going back and re-writing history for the century or so prior.
Compared to 2016, Clinton won New Jersey by 14 so a swing of 2% to Biden. Trump won Iowa by 10 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Alaska by 15 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Montana by 19 so that's a 7% swing to Biden.
As you well know, Biden doesn't need to win the likes of Alaska and Montana to gain a considerable victory in November.
Just to add the daily Presidential approval number for Trump has gone to -9 (45-54) having been tied at the weekend.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Fuehrer [edit], but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
Yeah, on fucking tenterhooks for whether FDR was going to back Germany.
Was that ever a serious prospect? Staying neutral was, but siding with Germany?
German almost became an official language of the US in the 1790s, alongside (rather than instead of, as is sometimes erroneously claimed) English. And there were undoubted German sympathies amongst the GOP and leading businessmen of the time. But there isn’t really a credible scenario in which the US would have taken a different side in WW2 that doesn’t involve going back and re-writing history for the century or so prior.
Nope, that is a myth. It was Pennsylvania, which of course had and still has a population of German-speakers, the "Pennsylvania Dutch", that considered adopting German as official alongside English as back then the proportion of German- to English- speakers was much higher than today. It was never proposed at national level to adopt German as an official language. Indeed, the US never adopted, and still hasn't adopted an actual official language.
I strongly disagree with @Luckyguy1983 that there was any question which side the US would join in either World War. There was never any question in both that the US might possibly side with Germany. The question was always would the US actually join the war or not.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Riechsfuehrer, but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I have some sympathy with de Valera there. After all, it was traditional to send condolences to a country on the death of a Head of State, unless you were at war with them - which Ireland wasn’t. If Xi died, Johnson would send official condolences.
However, let us not forget de Valera also sent the Irish Fire Brigade to Belfast to help and made threats to the Germans about what might happen if they didn’t redirect their bombers. And it’s not as though the Northern Irish were terribly grateful for the help either. No food, and it took I think sixty years for those Irish firefighters who had helped to be given medals.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Fuehrer [edit], but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I was brought up to believe the Irish had refueled the U Boats and reprovisioned them. Born Liverpool 1953
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Fuehrer [edit], but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I was brought up to believe the Irish had refueled the U Boats and reprovisioned them. Born Liverpool 1953
U-boat captains bought fish off Irish fishermen. So the second part is sort of true. I’m not aware that they ever refuelled in Ireland and I think it unlikely. If they had been able to do that they could have cut Britain off from Canada long before the fall of France.
Interesting to see some of the noises from the "back to normality" brigade. Apparently, according to some, you only get promoted if you are in the office - strange, I always thought the quality of your work mattered a lot more than your physical presence.
As for how "developers" work, it depends. If a group like working together in physical proximity, fine, nobody is saying "the office" is completely gone forever and nobody is saying home working must be compulsory and last forever.
The "office" experience will change from organisation to organisation depending on the people and what it does. My view remains for many back office transactional staff working at home is a viable option but it doesn't suit everyone.
The question for organisations then becomes whether they either try to compel staff back or re-think the office around a smaller working base (some cost savings to be had) and more flexible use of accommodation such as hiring space for larger gatherings.
The notion of people having to stand on cold, wet platforms in the dark to get on crowded trains and tubes or to sit for hours in traffic jams (yes, it's the only "personal time and space" some people ever get) compared to working at home seems to have only one winner to this observer.
It's almost comical to see Johnson flailing against the revolution - he works from home himself. A more thoughtful Government would be embracing the change and seeing how it can be utilised.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
In my experience the whole concept of "volunteering" as a student in Canada is dodgy. When I asked what if I didn't volunteer, I was told it was compulsory if I wanted to graduate High School... So I was sent to garden for an old woman with MS. I had no idea how to garden. Made a mess and we agreed I would never return. No one checked.
Interesting to see some of the noises from the "back to normality" brigade. Apparently, according to some, you only get promoted if you are in the office - strange, I always thought the quality of your work mattered a lot more than your physical presence.
As for how "developers" work, it depends. If a group like working together in physical proximity, fine, nobody is saying "the office" is completely gone forever and nobody is saying home working must be compulsory and last forever.
The "office" experience will change from organisation to organisation depending on the people and what it does. My view remains for many back office transactional staff working at home is a viable option but it doesn't suit everyone.
The question for organisations then becomes whether they either try to compel staff back or re-think the office around a smaller working base (some cost savings to be had) and more flexible use of accommodation such as hiring space for larger gatherings.
The notion of people having to stand on cold, wet platforms in the dark to get on crowded trains and tubes or to sit for hours in traffic jams (yes, it's the only "personal time and space" some people ever get) compared to working at home seems to have only one winner to this observer.
It's almost comical to see Johnson flailing against the revolution - he works from home himself. A more thoughtful Government would be embracing the change and seeing how it can be utilised.
Most office workers don’t need to be there every day, and most need to be there every so often. Anecdotally I know of several companies recognising that and downsizing their office premises.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
One of the reasons Slack took off is it's messaging system which allows people to message each other without impacting what they are actually doing.
But if you want a productive development team you offer them silence or the background music they want - you don't put them in a shared office that's hell for concentration, but gormless "presentation" managers don't understand that.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
I also wear headphones when programming with either light classical (Mozart's Divermenti or Haydn) or with ProgRock that I know so well that can anticipate every word and thus I do not have to listen - it is just there blocking out background noise.
Most office workers don’t need to be there every day, and most need to be there every so often. Anecdotally I know of several companies recognising that and downsizing their office premises.
Indeed - I'm opposed to companies cajoling staff back to an office just for the sake of space which, with social distancing, is at a premium. We worked out 30% was our maximum capacity but only 10% wanted to come back at all so what's the point of the real estate?
Like paper information, it's had its time and we need to move on.
The other side of the coin is even if everyone wanted to come back now, they couldn't because most modern open-plan offices just aren't equipped for social distancing - ironically, the more old-fashioned buildings with separate offices are much better.
I'll be honest - I don't miss the early starts or the commute, really I don't. I'm healthier and more productive and have a life beyond "eat, sleep, work, repeat".
It's almost comical to see Johnson flailing against the revolution - he works from home himself. A more thoughtful Government would be embracing the change and seeing how it can be utilised.
As I pointed out earlier today, while its obvious that the world has changed, the government can't say that out loud as it will lead to protests and requests for yet more bail outs from the people impacted (both workers and eventually landlords / pension funds).
Politicians probably know they are howling at the moon as they say "go back to the office" but even though they know it's a futile exercise at least when the cafe and shops close they can say well we did try.
Potentially close contest? I thought Biden was a street ahead.
It could be a very close contest. We're still 100 days from the election, and there are a lot of moving parts.
I could see anything from a three point Trump win, to a ten point Biden one.
My probs -
Trump easy - 5% Trump close - 15% Biden close - 30% Biden easy - 50%
So presumably you think Biden is good value at current odds? I agree, although I wouldn't want to overextend my position with 100 days still to go.
Yes I do. I'm keen to see the opening spreads on the EC. If I can sell Trump at significantly above 200 I'll be in like Flynn with that.
Lol! 'In Like Flynn'? Just how old are you?
TBF the feature film with that title only came out in 2018
Possibly confused with "In like Flint" or "Our Man Flint"? Do you have the James Coburn look?
"In like Flynn" = as successful as Errol Flynn in getting to know (Biblically) attractive (esp. young) women.; the movie star was charged with statutory rape in early 1940s, was acquitted in court by convicted by public opinion.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
In my experience the whole concept of "volunteering" as a student in Canada is dodgy. When I asked what if I didn't volunteer, I was told it was compulsory if I wanted to graduate High School... So I was sent to garden for an old woman with MS. I had no idea how to garden. Made a mess and we agreed I would never return. No one checked.
Did you get C$250,000 for giving speeches, as did Justin Trudeau's mommy?
As I pointed out earlier today, while its obvious that the world has changed, the government can't say that out loud as it will lead to protests and requests for yet more bail outs from the people impacted (both workers and eventually landlords / pension funds).
Politicians probably know they are howling at the moon as they say "go back to the office" but even though they know it's a futile exercise at least when the cafe and shops close they can say well we did try.
Well, yes, but it's already happening. Look at retail valuations - sharply lower. The value of your retail real estate is plummeting (one or two worried Finance Officers in local authorities I can assure you) and there are already those looking to re-purpose the retail estate to hotels or other options just to preserve the value.
Some cafes and some shops will close but for some others (particularly in those formerly quiet commuter dormitory towns) it will be a new lease of life. In East Ham, where I suspect most workers aren't office based, it's more like business as usual on the tubes and buses.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
In my experience the whole concept of "volunteering" as a student in Canada is dodgy. When I asked what if I didn't volunteer, I was told it was compulsory if I wanted to graduate High School... So I was sent to garden for an old woman with MS. I had no idea how to garden. Made a mess and we agreed I would never return. No one checked.
Did you get C$250,000 for giving speeches, as did Justin Trudeau's mommy?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
I also wear headphones when programming with either light classical (Mozart's Divermenti or Haydn) or with ProgRock that I know so well that can anticipate every word and thus I do not have to listen - it is just there blocking out background noise.
In RL you used to work in a lift? Or in a BA plane taxing toward the runway. Or in the lavatories of a Jury’s hotel. Surely.
In my experience the whole concept of "volunteering" as a student in Canada is dodgy. When I asked what if I didn't volunteer, I was told it was compulsory if I wanted to graduate High School... So I was sent to garden for an old woman with MS. I had no idea how to garden. Made a mess and we agreed I would never return. No one checked.
Did you get C$250,000 for giving speeches, as did Justin Trudeau's mommy?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
Compared to 2016, Clinton won New Jersey by 14 so a swing of 2% to Biden. Trump won Iowa by 10 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Alaska by 15 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Montana by 19 so that's a 7% swing to Biden.
As you well know, Biden doesn't need to win the likes of Alaska and Montana to gain a considerable victory in November.
Just to add the daily Presidential approval number for Trump has gone to -9 (45-54) having been tied at the weekend.
The trouble with comparing to past results, rather than past polling, is that structurally the polling tends to favour Democrats until the campaign begins proper when the stricter voter weighting comes in. A lot of the polls coming out right now are RV, including these PPP ones.
This is not a new thing, e.g. McCain was averaging 6 in polling at around this point in Alaska, he ended up winning by 21.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
You come across as arguing for sake of argument - NOT because you really believe what you're arguing.
Compared to 2016, Clinton won New Jersey by 14 so a swing of 2% to Biden. Trump won Iowa by 10 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Alaska by 15 so that's a 4.5% swing to Biden. Trump won Montana by 19 so that's a 7% swing to Biden.
As you well know, Biden doesn't need to win the likes of Alaska and Montana to gain a considerable victory in November.
Just to add the daily Presidential approval number for Trump has gone to -9 (45-54) having been tied at the weekend.
The trouble with comparing to past results, rather than past polling, is that structurally the polling tends to favour Democrats until the campaign begins proper when the stricter voter weighting comes in. A lot of the polls coming out right now are RV, including these PPP ones.
This is not a new thing, e.g. McCain was averaging 6 in polling at around this point in Alaska, he ended up winning by 21.
Is now a particularly conducive time to come clean about one's political affiliations? to employers, colleagues, even family? I would suggest not.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
The colour of the skin isn't the matter, but yes money does go further over there . . . and not only that but the two disasters were three decades apart and money itself had changed then. Comparing the numbers makes no sense whatsoever.
"The virus has taken our liberty. Must it take our humanity as well? There have been far worse diseases in the world. We just have to learn to live alongside Covid-19
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
You come across as arguing for sake of argument - NOT because you really believe what you're arguing.
Either way NOT very persuasive.
You're entitled not to be persuaded. I will continue to believe that the US authorities' treatment of BP was an act of state-sponsored piracy not befitting an ally, in marked contrast to the behaviour of its own corporate entities when they have caused disasters many orders of magnitude worse overseas. I do not see the point as a particular contentious one.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Riechsfuehrer, but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I have some sympathy with de Valera there. After all, it was traditional to send condolences to a country on the death of a Head of State, unless you were at war with them - which Ireland wasn’t. If Xi died, Johnson would send official condolences.
However, let us not forget de Valera also sent the Irish Fire Brigade to Belfast to help and made threats to the Germans about what might happen if they didn’t redirect their bombers. And it’s not as though the Northern Irish were terribly grateful for the help either. No food, and it took I think sixty years for those Irish firefighters who had helped to be given medals.
Dev did do the formal thing - but after the concentration camp newsreels had appeared in the cinemas ... more generally, however I do have sympathy with him as I do think de Valera would have seen the outbreak of civil war once again if he had given overt alliance to either side in the war.
It was control of India which made the British Empire a Superpower, once India got independence so Britain's Superpower status went with it
It was control of the oceans which made Britain the superpower.
And with control of Indian ports we had control of the Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand ports much of the Pacific, we lost much of our control of the Atlantic Ocean with the independence of the American colonies though our control of Canada and much of Africa still kept it in part.
It was only after WW2 and the late 1940s the Royal Navy ceased being the largest navy in the world which also coincided with Indian independence
I think you’ll find the Royal Navy ceased to be the largest in the world in 1924.
Admittedly, it cheated somewhat on the terms of the Washington Naval treaty by continuing to have de facto Royal Navy Fleets in Canada and Australia, but by 1945 the American Navy was far larger by any measure.
Canada and Australia were still British dominions until well into the latter half of the 20th century. It was only after 1945 the Royal Navy substantially reduced itself
No they weren’t. Even if I assumed Australia was not independent de facto from 1901 (which it was) South Africa, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Canada were made formally independent of British rule by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
Westminster still had the power to legislate over Australia until the Australia Act 1986, Canada did not repatriate its constitution from Britain until 1982, South Africa became a fully self governing republic only under the 1961 Republic of South Africa Act and in theory New Zealand even remains a British dominion today
Hyufd, those powers were equivalent to the penalty of death for piracy that Jack Straw signed away in 2000. They were paper powers left in place because nobody could be bothered to remove them. The only time they were used was when the government of Newfoundland collapsed in 1934. In South Africa, where the government was fearful they might be used against apartheid, they were as you note but don’t seem to understand removed much earlier.
The statute of Westminster made Canada independent. Indeed, arguably it recognised a situation dating from the nineteenth century. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong. I think you know that perfectly well but as usual can’t bear to admit it.
And the UK proper made some horrendous mistakes during the war. In view of the resulting tensions (e.g. fall of Singapore and its effect on the Australians, ditto Dieppe and the Canadians), how does HYUFD think that invoking these powers would have gone down?
I think the only one of the Dominions that the UK ever considered annexing during World War II was Ireland. This was the counsel of desperation as Ireland was (a) neutral (b) strategically vital in the battle of the Atlantic. But that would have been done by military incursion from the north, not by invoking these theoretical powers Hyufd is wittering on about (which were actually to do with royal succession rather than anything else).
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Quite so. In the end they seem to have reached a convenient accommodation - things like flying boats allowed to cross Irish land from Lough Erne and stray American fliers being quiety redirected north. Admittedly overshadowed by things like the Taoiseach sending his commiserations on the death of the Riechsfuehrer, but the reality on the ground seems very different.
I have some sympathy with de Valera there. After all, it was traditional to send condolences to a country on the death of a Head of State, unless you were at war with them - which Ireland wasn’t. If Xi died, Johnson would send official condolences.
However, let us not forget de Valera also sent the Irish Fire Brigade to Belfast to help and made threats to the Germans about what might happen if they didn’t redirect their bombers. And it’s not as though the Northern Irish were terribly grateful for the help either. No food, and it took I think sixty years for those Irish firefighters who had helped to be given medals.
Dev did do the formal thing - but after the concentration camp newsreels had appeared in the cinemas ... more generally, however I do have sympathy with him as I do think de Valera would have seen the outbreak of civil war once again if he had given overt alliance to either side in the war.
Edit: I was quite impressed by the Merchant Navy memolrial placed on the Liffey dockside some years ago - beloatedly - and also by the way the National Museum treated the world wars in its galleries in Collins Barracks.
"The virus has taken our liberty. Must it take our humanity as well? There have been far worse diseases in the world. We just have to learn to live alongside Covid-19
It certainly hasn't taken our humanity - far from it. The decision to lock down to try to save lives and protect the health services rather than letting the virus run wild through the population was a very human response.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
You come across as arguing for sake of argument - NOT because you really believe what you're arguing.
Either way NOT very persuasive.
You're entitled not to be persuaded. I will continue to believe that the US authorities' treatment of BP was an act of state-sponsored piracy not befitting an ally, in marked contrast to the behaviour of its own corporate entities when they have caused disasters many orders of magnitude worse overseas. I do not see the point as a particular contentious one.
Not sure but suspect that BP has as many American as British investors. Note that according to something called Investopedia, 4 of 5 top institutional investors in BP are American, the 5th is Saudi.
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
Thinking about it, the Ukraine was probably in the worst position in World War II as a nation. Absolubtely screwed any and every which way. Poland too.
I believe Belorussia (in the same vicinity) suffered proportionally the most of all nations in WWII.
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
To be fair, BP was responsible for causing a massive amount of damage to the Gulf Coast, and they broke lots of laws - like the Clean Water Act - with prescribed damages.
(It's also worth remembering that US law changed since the Exxon Valdez to make it a lot easier to extract money from oil & gas firms who are responsible for environmental... errr... issues.)
In the Bhopal gas leak, Union Carbide poisoned 574,000 people, of whom 5,300 died, and they paid £376m. Compensation to families per death was just over £1000. Per death! The environmental damage is still unfolding to this day.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
Did you miss rcs saying that the law was changed after Exxon Valdez?
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied. Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
Oh, that's alright then. I'm sure the brown people were more than contented with the shiny greenbacks they were given - goes further over there doesn't it?
You come across as arguing for sake of argument - NOT because you really believe what you're arguing.
Either way NOT very persuasive.
You're entitled not to be persuaded. I will continue to believe that the US authorities' treatment of BP was an act of state-sponsored piracy not befitting an ally, in marked contrast to the behaviour of its own corporate entities when they have caused disasters many orders of magnitude worse overseas. I do not see the point as a particular contentious one.
Not sure but suspect that BP has as many American as British investors. Note that according to something called Investopedia, 4 of 5 top institutional investors in BP are American, the 5th is Saudi.
I believe it also has more US employees than British ones - certainly it did at the time of the spill.
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Maybe because museums and galleries don’t feature on the must do list of many people.
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
Yes - 100% by choice where practical is the way. Forcing someone to work from home can be its own tyranny.
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Are you sure? Many of London's museums and galleries are open now, some have been for a few weeks.
"The virus has taken our liberty. Must it take our humanity as well? There have been far worse diseases in the world. We just have to learn to live alongside Covid-19
It certainly hasn't taken our humanity - far from it. The decision to lock down to try to save lives and protect the health services rather than letting the virus run wild through the population was a very human response.
I agree. The world as a whole has surprised me on the upside. I'd have thought the authorities would have been far more cavalier than they have been. They are having a real bash at saving lives in most places.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
As I said before I don't think learning by osmosis is the best approach but that is what you seem to think people should do.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
I agree, during the 1920s and 30s the USA was largely demilitarised and isolationist. .
Not in naval terms - it maintained a large and effective fleet between the wars, even if it was hampered by being split betweent two oceans.
It was only the Washington Treaty* that stopped the US from building a Two Ocean navy that would have been bigger than the RN and the Japanese Navy. Combined.
*well that and the Depression.
We should have let them, as Churchill later said, rather than trying to limit them.
"Build what you want - you don't figure in our plans at all, except as a potential friend".
Except: "War Plan Red was one of the color-coded war plans created by the United States War Department in the late 1920s and the early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with the United Kingdom (the "Red" forces)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
I don't think the US actually expected to use it ever. Planning is what general staffs do. Probably there's still some sort of outline in the basement of the Pentagon for the general problem of "how would we conquer Canada if the President decides maple syrup is too expensive". Probably the MoD has a plan to invade France somewhere too.
You can't possibly know that. US policy (perhaps understandably) toward Britain since the inception of the country has been ambivalent at best. Their participation in both world wars was belated and it was by no means certain which side they would join. Even in the modern era being their best buddy ever hasn't stopped them shaking down BP and Standard Chartered.
You must be chugging EverClear IF you truly believe that USA joining with Germany in either WWI or WWII was EVER a realistic prospect.
Germany certainly realized there was ZERO chance of USA aligning self with either Kaiser's or Hitler's Reich. Only question was, would US actually go to war with Germany. Which of course we did, mostly as a result of German miscalculation.
Thinking about it, the Ukraine was probably in the worst position in World War II as a nation. Absolubtely screwed any and every which way. Poland too.
I believe Belorussia (in the same vicinity) suffered proportionally the most of all nations in WWII.
Then Chernobyl. You can see why they saw covid and decided to drink vodka.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
An eloquent defence of the status quo but as one of the revolutionaries, I don't wholly agree.
First, it is a quick and decisive change and it's been led as much by restrictions on office space as by a cultural change. If you can only have 25% capacity in your office due to social distancing, that forces change and while some companies are arguing everyone comes in at least once a week an alternative approach might be to allow those who want to back and let those who don't remain wfh.
The issue of training/induction is one I've heard often and it's challenging but not impossible. Working "with" someone is no longer just about physical proximity - modern technology allows for the face-to-face contact and sharing documents and screens allows for training - it can be done.
The "cost" of having an office is more about the rationale of having or needing an office rather than just hiring space as and when required.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Maybe because museums and galleries don’t feature on the must do list of many people.
I dunno I hear the Benidorm Museum of the Finest Arts is a must see on the strip!
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Are you sure? Many of London's museums and galleries are open now, some have been for a few weeks.
What led us to cancel our September holiday to Italy was the thought of having to wear masks all the time when sightseeing, visiting galleries etc.
Don't get me wrong, I support the need to wear masks - I just didn't fancy sending money on a masked holiday.
We'll re-book for next year, hopefully (literally).
Why would anybody even want to go to a foreign country on "holiday" anyway, when lots of the usual places like museums and galleries aren't open because of the pandemic?
Maybe because museums and galleries don’t feature on the must do list of many people.
I dunno I hear the Benidorm Museum of the Finest Arts is a must see on the strip!
It’s the draw of classical music by buskers outside of your hotel I look forward to.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
As I said before I don't think learning by osmosis is the best approach but that is what you seem to think people should do.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
Formally and documented every six months, in practice its more important that it is as and when needed for newer staff or where there are issues but thats less formal. As for learning by osmosis surely it depends what skills and knowledge you are looking to learn? If you are a young accountant seeking to understand how the IT dept or sales dept works, (which might be only a peripheral part of their role so never taught formally) talking to their peers and managers in those depts is very effective. If its a deep technical skill then of course its different.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
No it didn't, you may as well say the USA ceased being a superpower when it lost the Vietnam War.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
No it didn't, you may as well say the USA ceased being a superpower when it lost the Vietnam War.
Suez happened after the independence of India
And why do you think Suiez was a ****ing disaster? Because the UK - mnot 'Britain' - had lost most of its power and influence already.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
No it didn't, you may as well say the USA ceased being a superpower when it lost the Vietnam War.
Suez happened after the independence of India
Yours truly never said word about Suez, as that occurred AFTER Britain's days as superpower were kaput.
Any power dependent upon financing by other nations for it's existence can NOT be super.
And you do NOT think fall of Singapore was a decisive turning point?
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
As I said before I don't think learning by osmosis is the best approach but that is what you seem to think people should do.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
Formally and documented every six months, in practice its more important that it is as and when needed for newer staff or where there are issues but thats less formal. As for learning by osmosis surely it depends what skills and knowledge you are looking to learn? If you are a young accountant seeking to understand how the IT dept or sales dept works, (which might be only a peripheral part of their role so never taught formally) talking to their peers and managers in those depts is very effective. If its a deep technical skill then of course its different.
So what is stopping them from picking up the phone and asking or using email to organise a meeting with someone in that department - most people love to talk about what they do.
The only thing the new world requires is to ensure people are better at communicating what is going on... And that is going to take time as while I can cover how MS (Consulting), Google, Stripe or even Buffer manage wholly remote workforces it requires a wholly different way of working but massive productivity gains if done correctly.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
That doesn't sound like a performance review, just a 1-1. A performance review is a more formal and comprehensive process involving feedback from multiple sources.
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
No it didn't, you may as well say the USA ceased being a superpower when it lost the Vietnam War.
Suez happened after the independence of India
And why do you think Suiez was a ****ing disaster? Because the UK - mnot 'Britain' - had lost most of its power and influence already.
And after the independence of America, the core of British power and the Empire was India, the Jewel in the Crown, India gained independence in 1947, Suez did not occur until 1956
Yours truly never said word about Suez, as that occurred AFTER Britain's days as superpower were kaput.
Any power dependent upon financing by other nations for it's existence can NOT be super.
And you do NOT think fall of Singapore was a decisive turning point?
It's pretty futile looking for a specific date. There are so many definitions of superpower (e.g. how about 1913, when - IIRC - the UK was no longer the largest producer of iron & steel in the world).
It's more relevant to say that before WWI, the UK was a superpower. By WWII we weren't. At some point in the intervening period crossover happened.
Singapore wasn't particularly significant - it was an embarrassing military reversal. Suez just highlighted the realities of life.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
As I said before I don't think learning by osmosis is the best approach but that is what you seem to think people should do.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
Formally and documented every six months, in practice its more important that it is as and when needed for newer staff or where there are issues but thats less formal. As for learning by osmosis surely it depends what skills and knowledge you are looking to learn? If you are a young accountant seeking to understand how the IT dept or sales dept works, (which might be only a peripheral part of their role so never taught formally) talking to their peers and managers in those depts is very effective. If its a deep technical skill then of course its different.
So what is stopping them from picking up the phone and asking or using email to organise a meeting with someone in that department - most people love to talk about what they do.
The only thing the new world requires is to ensure people are better at communicating what is going on... And that is going to take time as while I can cover how MS (Consulting), Google, Stripe or even Buffer manage wholly remote workforces it requires a wholly different way of working but massive productivity gains if done correctly.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
If we are talking about communication perhaps you didnt pick up on "in practice its more important that it is as and when needed for newer staff or where there are issues but thats less formal"
It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.
Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?
I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."
Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!
Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.
Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.
The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.
I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
No it didn't, you may as well say the USA ceased being a superpower when it lost the Vietnam War.
Suez happened after the independence of India
Yours truly never said word about Suez, as that occurred AFTER Britain's days as superpower were kaput.
Any power dependent upon financing by other nations for it's existence can NOT be super.
And you do NOT think fall of Singapore was a decisive turning point?
The fall of Singapore was not a turning point other than boosting Japan in WW2 any more than Pearl Harbour was a turning point in the end of US superpower status.
The fact the US made some loans to help Britain through WW2 did not stop it being a superpower and they were loans not handouts
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
That doesn't sound like a performance review, just a 1-1. A performance review is a more formal and comprehensive process involving feedback from multiple sources.
Surely feedback should be continual, if you are at the point that you need to sit down and formalise it you are heading rapidly towards performance review or a nasty surprise for either management or the employee.
Just as a single example, if reporting includes customer feedback surely it's better to ask for it a few days after the interaction rather than asking for it 5 months later. And surely it's better to pass that feedback on soon after it's been received rather than waiting 5 months.
Yes you can call it a one 2 one or whatever you want. The fact is that if you are bundling things up into bi-annual performance reviews you are missing a while pile of things - in reality performance reviews should be often and continual enough to the point that the formal version doesn't need to exist.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
I also wear headphones when programming with either light classical (Mozart's Divermenti or Haydn) or with ProgRock that I know so well that can anticipate every word and thus I do not have to listen - it is just there blocking out background noise.
In RL you used to work in a lift? Or in a BA plane taxing toward the runway. Or in the lavatories of a Jury’s hotel. Surely.
I worked in the lift that ran between the upper and lower deck on a BA747. If no passengers needed me then I cleaned the pilots' loo. That all changed when I deposed Jupiter Jones as Empress of the Known Universe.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
That doesn't sound like a performance review, just a 1-1. A performance review is a more formal and comprehensive process involving feedback from multiple sources.
Surely feedback should be continual, if you are at the point that you need to sit down and formalise it you are heading rapidly towards performance review or a nasty surprise for either management or the employee.
Just as a single example, if reporting includes customer feedback surely it's better to ask for it a few days after the interaction rather than asking for it 5 months later. And surely it's better to pass that feedback on soon after it's been received rather than waiting 5 months.
Absolutely feedback is continual and that is more important in practice than a formal performance review as I pointed out. However you asked about performance reviews so I answered the less important bit as well.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
That doesn't sound like a performance review, just a 1-1. A performance review is a more formal and comprehensive process involving feedback from multiple sources.
Surely feedback should be continual, if you are at the point that you need to sit down and formalise it you are heading rapidly towards performance review or a nasty surprise for either management or the employee.
I can assure you the companies you cited use a process like I'm describing. Continual feedback is valuable but it doesn't replace a structured process for performance review.
The reason why working from home is unlikely to remain as widespread as people think is that those who work remotely are likely to get sidelined and overlooked for promotion, and are most likely to get made redundant if there's a need to reduce headcount. It's also, as others have said, very difficult for training up new staff, and for motivating teams. It's great working from home if you have a report to write, or you're developing a new software module, but that's been the case for a long time. I don't think we'll see a huge change from the pre-Covid-19 position, just some increased flexibility.
It will be very role specific. If I think of our business, sales people are going to be working in offices because they sell more if they are together, sharing info, competing etc. Content-generation and marketing can be done very effectively from home, and will only need the odd meeting in the office. Developers and designers will have to be in now and again, but not all the time. The events team, well ... we have pivoted to online events: they generate a lot less revenue, but far higher margins, than physical events; and they need far fewer people working on them and it can all be done from home.
Developers work well in a team, it would be suicide to compartmentalise them as well as separate them from each other. Honestly, the death of the office is massively overstated IMO.
Most developers I know use a pair of headphones to drown out office noise - they really don't need the distractions of an office. The ideal solution is silence to allow them to concentrate on the problem they are currently thinking through.
But hey what do I know I've merely been one for 30 odd years...
Edit to add - this is the reason why daily stand-ups work so well - it provides a daily point at which issues can be identified and anyone having problems can put they hand up and ask for help.
Precisely and with screen sharing and video standups nothing is lost. I did a training session for other developers on the team just last week on a system they didn't know too well with absolutely no issues using nothing more than teams and screen sharing.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
No brainer for you clearly.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
I am not saying people can't be office based if they like. The difference is those that want to be office based seem to think the rest of us should come in else what is the point of them being there and they will get lonely
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what others are saying to exaggerate your own point.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
As I said before I don't think learning by osmosis is the best approach but that is what you seem to think people should do.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
Formally and documented every six months, in practice its more important that it is as and when needed for newer staff or where there are issues but thats less formal. As for learning by osmosis surely it depends what skills and knowledge you are looking to learn? If you are a young accountant seeking to understand how the IT dept or sales dept works, (which might be only a peripheral part of their role so never taught formally) talking to their peers and managers in those depts is very effective. If its a deep technical skill then of course its different.
So what is stopping them from picking up the phone and asking or using email to organise a meeting with someone in that department - most people love to talk about what they do.
The only thing the new world requires is to ensure people are better at communicating what is going on... And that is going to take time as while I can cover how MS (Consulting), Google, Stripe or even Buffer manage wholly remote workforces it requires a wholly different way of working but massive productivity gains if done correctly.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
There is no way you want a formal and documented review process every week.
I talk to all my team individually every week, at least. We have team meetings 3 times a week. Feedback is given immediately. But we only have a formal and documented review process every 6 months.
Comments
Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed as I hate to think what would have happened had Britain invaded Ireland.
Edit - although I suppose these powers were probably moot anyway in light of the Irish Constitution of 1937, which gave the Irish a President and effectively turned it into a republic in all but name.
TBF the feature film with that title only came out in 2018
As you well know, Biden doesn't need to win the likes of Alaska and Montana to gain a considerable victory in November.
Just to add the daily Presidential approval number for Trump has gone to -9 (45-54) having been tied at the weekend.
Very nearly chose that for my logo when I joined. Had to be Cool Hand Luke or a tin of baked beans. Went with the beans.
I strongly disagree with @Luckyguy1983 that there was any question which side the US would join in either World War. There was never any question in both that the US might possibly side with Germany. The question was always would the US actually join the war or not.
However, let us not forget de Valera also sent the Irish Fire Brigade to Belfast to help and made threats to the Germans about what might happen if they didn’t redirect their bombers. And it’s not as though the Northern Irish were terribly grateful for the help either. No food, and it took I think sixty years for those Irish firefighters who had helped to be given medals.
What are birds? You sound about 75 yourself with that.
Check it out -
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/07/28/craig-marc-kielburger-to-testify-at-commons-committee-over-student-program.html
Interesting to see some of the noises from the "back to normality" brigade. Apparently, according to some, you only get promoted if you are in the office - strange, I always thought the quality of your work mattered a lot more than your physical presence.
As for how "developers" work, it depends. If a group like working together in physical proximity, fine, nobody is saying "the office" is completely gone forever and nobody is saying home working must be compulsory and last forever.
The "office" experience will change from organisation to organisation depending on the people and what it does. My view remains for many back office transactional staff working at home is a viable option but it doesn't suit everyone.
The question for organisations then becomes whether they either try to compel staff back or re-think the office around a smaller working base (some cost savings to be had) and more flexible use of accommodation such as hiring space for larger gatherings.
The notion of people having to stand on cold, wet platforms in the dark to get on crowded trains and tubes or to sit for hours in traffic jams (yes, it's the only "personal time and space" some people ever get) compared to working at home seems to have only one winner to this observer.
It's almost comical to see Johnson flailing against the revolution - he works from home himself. A more thoughtful Government would be embracing the change and seeing how it can be utilised.
I also am probably 50% to 100% more productive without the distractions of an open plan office.
I fear most companies are though going to go for a half way house, that is to say 3 days wfh 2 days in the office. To me this just means you are cutting my productivity for 2 days for no real reason unless you insist on all the team being in the same 2 days. It also cuts some of the major benefits to me of home working in that I am still tied down to the area my office is in. I can't move to an area where I could actually afford to buy a house, nor can I move to be closer to family. A family I have had little contact, a week or two a year from my holiday and phone calls etc, with since I left college because I had to move to the london area to find work from the south west.
When I asked what if I didn't volunteer, I was told it was compulsory if I wanted to graduate High School...
So I was sent to garden for an old woman with MS. I had no idea how to garden. Made a mess and we agreed I would never return.
No one checked.
'I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered'
What a a geezer.
Anecdotally I know of several companies recognising that and downsizing their office premises.
But if you want a productive development team you offer them silence or the background music they want - you don't put them in a shared office that's hell for concentration, but gormless "presentation" managers don't understand that.
Funnily enough Best is the person I picture whenever I hear that term "birds". Him or the ghastly Michael Caine.
Like paper information, it's had its time and we need to move on.
The other side of the coin is even if everyone wanted to come back now, they couldn't because most modern open-plan offices just aren't equipped for social distancing - ironically, the more old-fashioned buildings with separate offices are much better.
I'll be honest - I don't miss the early starts or the commute, really I don't. I'm healthier and more productive and have a life beyond "eat, sleep, work, repeat".
Politicians probably know they are howling at the moon as they say "go back to the office" but even though they know it's a futile exercise at least when the cafe and shops close they can say well we did try.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/28/scientists-successfully-revived-mesozoic-era-microbes-from-the-sea
A pretty remarkable finding.
Some cafes and some shops will close but for some others (particularly in those formerly quiet commuter dormitory towns) it will be a new lease of life. In East Ham, where I suspect most workers aren't office based, it's more like business as usual on the tubes and buses.
By contrast, BP has paid £47 BILLION. How many deaths? 11, and 17 injuries.
It was simple highway robbery.
But what about the many people who are very different personalities at work than they are at home?
Some potentially difficult challenges there.
LPC corrupt isn't really news though...
BP was post-Exxon Valdez so the new law applied.
Bhopal was before it . . . and in a different country!
This is not a new thing, e.g. McCain was averaging 6 in polling at around this point in Alaska, he ended up winning by 21.
Methinks they are NOT doing very well. And neither is PM Trudeau.
Either way NOT very persuasive.
There have been far worse diseases in the world. We just have to learn to live alongside Covid-19
JONATHAN SUMPTION" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/27/virus-has-taken-liberty-must-take-humanity/
It certainly hasn't taken our humanity - far from it. The decision to lock down to try to save lives and protect the health services rather than letting the virus run wild through the population was a very human response.
On this thread Ive probably been the poster most saying that wfh is not as simple as continuing the lockdown period. However I am agreeing that the trend is that way, just that it wont be as quick or as decisive as a forum dominated by middle aged geeks (myself included) is going to think.
Not everyone works in an analytical role where concentration is vital, not everyone has an hour commute to a nice rural or suburban home.
People new to the workplace will be at a huge disadvantage working from home, the best graduates will want to learn from our experience, and it is easier to do that in the same room.
Do businesses want to focus on getting those in the door, or on making the most out of existing staff. The answer will vary significantly for businesses.
We also dont know what happens to office costs, if they go back to 2008 levels for instance that would be about a 70% saving for our business, at which point its not particularly expensive to have an office.
Good businesses are also often communities not just a set of tasks that need to be done. The future will be varied with more working from home but it will be an evolution accelerated by covid, not a revolution where expecting people to turn up to a physical office for work becomes taboo.
What actually needs to be done is to formalise within contracts that it is the responsibility of all senior staff to support, train and advice more junior staff and ensure that is contained within whatever performance targets and tracking are used.
BTW how often does your company do performance reviews?
First, it is a quick and decisive change and it's been led as much by restrictions on office space as by a cultural change. If you can only have 25% capacity in your office due to social distancing, that forces change and while some companies are arguing everyone comes in at least once a week an alternative approach might be to allow those who want to back and let those who don't remain wfh.
The issue of training/induction is one I've heard often and it's challenging but not impossible. Working "with" someone is no longer just about physical proximity - modern technology allows for the face-to-face contact and sharing documents and screens allows for training - it can be done.
The "cost" of having an office is more about the rationale of having or needing an office rather than just hiring space as and when required.
Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.
OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.
Here is the total Case per 100,000 map
But here is the in last 2 week
Don't get me wrong, I support the need to wear masks - I just didn't fancy sending money on a masked holiday.
We'll re-book for next year, hopefully (literally).
Suez happened after the independence of India
Any power dependent upon financing by other nations for it's existence can NOT be super.
And you do NOT think fall of Singapore was a decisive turning point?
So what is stopping them from picking up the phone and asking or using email to organise a meeting with someone in that department - most people love to talk about what they do.
The only thing the new world requires is to ensure people are better at communicating what is going on... And that is going to take time as while I can cover how MS (Consulting), Google, Stripe or even Buffer manage wholly remote workforces it requires a wholly different way of working but massive productivity gains if done correctly.
And thanks for answering the performance review question, the fact it's structured on a 6 monthly basis tells me that your company isn't one for communication. Ideally you want these things done fortnightly or even weekly (heck it would only take 5 minutes as part of a catch up session) as it ensures issues are dealt with quickly and nothing is a surprise...
It's more relevant to say that before WWI, the UK was a superpower. By WWII we weren't. At some point in the intervening period crossover happened.
Singapore wasn't particularly significant - it was an embarrassing military reversal. Suez just highlighted the realities of life.
The fact the US made some loans to help Britain through WW2 did not stop it being a superpower and they were loans not handouts
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.html
Just as a single example, if reporting includes customer feedback surely it's better to ask for it a few days after the interaction rather than asking for it 5 months later. And surely it's better to pass that feedback on soon after it's been received rather than waiting 5 months.
Yes you can call it a one 2 one or whatever you want. The fact is that if you are bundling things up into bi-annual performance reviews you are missing a while pile of things - in reality performance reviews should be often and continual enough to the point that the formal version doesn't need to exist.
I talk to all my team individually every week, at least. We have team meetings 3 times a week. Feedback is given immediately. But we only have a formal and documented review process every 6 months.