He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
There's going to be a lot of redundancies in London support services when the furlough scheme ends, the government can't afford to keep it running indefinitely, and they don't want to see the inevitable massive spike in unemployment when the furlough scheme ends.
They seem to have missed that the forced WFH experiment has been largely successful for those working from home for the last few months.
The determination of the government to try and get people back to commuting is one of their worst authoritarian instincts.
Agreed. If WFH is here to stay then better for people to get used to it now and move on.
Quite frankly its no bad thing if overcrowded trains turn out not to be so necessary afterall.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
There's going to be a lot of redundancies in London support services when the furlough scheme ends, the government can't afford to keep it running indefinitely, and they don't want to see the inevitable massive spike in unemployment when the furlough scheme ends.
They seem to have missed that the forced WFH experiment has been largely successful for those working from home for the last few months.
The determination of the government to try and get people back to commuting is one of their worst authoritarian instincts.
I'm not sure it's authoritarian so much as simply futile panic. As you say, a big spike in unemployment looms. They're simply trying to cajole commuters into going back into the cities to work so as to reduce the amount of economic dislocation, take the edge off the pain, and try to make the transition to the new economic structure slightly more smooth and gradual. But it's unlikely to have much effect.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
Yeah, sack their lazy arses!
The problem you may find Philip, is there aren't going to be too many other jobs to find!
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
I never said that it was - it's just that the process of getting millions of unemployed back into work again won't necessarily be so smart and easy as you tried to make it sound, either.
This could all too easily end up as a repeat of the early 80s - not enough work to go around, a lot of younger people on the dole for years, and with many over-50s discovering that they are now on the scrapheap and may never work again.
Breaking: Labour councillor criticizes Tory cabinet minister! I am shocked Sir, truly shocked.
But seriously, is this chap really inviting us to liken his classroom to a rave or something?
Well, my lessons are always a PARTAYYY.
("No they're not Sir." "Fair point, Scroggins Minor.")
The key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, it's the same thing: lots of bodies in close proximity. If I weren't on a strange pre-Coivid career break, I'd be doing all my lessons behind the perspex shield I have for chemistry demonstrations, thank you very much.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
Such free market non-statist views, Nick!
For once, I agree with you!
Actually, even in my furthest leftie days, I didn't favour giving the Government the power to tell employers to sack people. Hope for us all, eh?
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
There's going to be a lot of redundancies in London support services when the furlough scheme ends, the government can't afford to keep it running indefinitely, and they don't want to see the inevitable massive spike in unemployment when the furlough scheme ends.
They seem to have missed that the forced WFH experiment has been largely successful for those working from home for the last few months.
The determination of the government to try and get people back to commuting is one of their worst authoritarian instincts.
I'm not sure it's authoritarian so much as simply futile panic. As you say, a big spike in unemployment looms. They're simply trying to cajole commuters into going back into the cities to work so as to reduce the amount of economic dislocation, take the edge off the pain, and try to make the transition to the new economic structure slightly more smooth and gradual. But it's unlikely to have much effect.
But those who are WFH are spending money in their own local shops, and, as I got ridiculed for when I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, buying nice coffee machines and beans rather than spending £6 a day with Starbucks.
The one advantage the government might have is that a lot of the London service workers are immigrants, who may leave the country rather than claim unemployment.
The pandemic has produced at least a decade's worth of white-collar working practice change in six months, companies either need to deal with it or be replaced by those who do.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
I never said that it was - it's just that the process of getting millions of unemployed back into work again won't necessarily be so smart and easy as you tried to make it sound, either.
This could all too easily end up as a repeat of the early 80s - not enough work to go around, a lot of younger people on the dole for years, and with many over-50s discovering that they are now on the scrapheap and may never work again.
It was right for the UK to go through the 80s even if it was difficult. But I don't think it will be that difficult anyway.
* I don't think millions of people work at Pret in London. * I doubt there that many over-50s working at Pret in London. * We are starting off from full employment. * Haven't we been told for years that there are no employees to be found for these jobs so we need to import migrants to do them?
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
There's going to be a lot of redundancies in London support services when the furlough scheme ends, the government can't afford to keep it running indefinitely, and they don't want to see the inevitable massive spike in unemployment when the furlough scheme ends.
They seem to have missed that the forced WFH experiment has been largely successful for those working from home for the last few months.
The determination of the government to try and get people back to commuting is one of their worst authoritarian instincts.
Agreed. If WFH is here to stay then better for people to get used to it now and move on.
Quite frankly its no bad thing if overcrowded trains turn out not to be so necessary afterall.
Quite why Boris expects me to resume spending 2 hours of my working day squeezing onto an overcrowded train and paying £200/mth for the privilege is beyond ne
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?
SNP are complete anti British Stalinista retards.
Sturgeon has destroyed the Scottish economy even though under their watch COVID is completely out of control!
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
Yes Nick get back to work!
We don't need spongers, benefit seekers or other LAB spongers. If they won't get back to work we stop their benefits.
Breaking: Labour councillor criticizes Tory cabinet minister! I am shocked Sir, truly shocked.
But seriously, is this chap really inviting us to liken his classroom to a rave or something?
Well, my lessons are always a PARTAYYY.
("No they're not Sir." "Fair point, Scroggins Minor.")
The key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, it's the same thing: lots of bodies in close proximity. If I weren't on a strange pre-Coivid career break, I'd be doing all my lessons behind the perspex shield I have for chemistry demonstrations, thank you very much.
No the key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, is that they're very different.
The lessons are necessary and will have an associated risk to R. The parties are unnecessary and will have an associated risk to R.
The key is to try and keep R at one by eliminating unnecessary risks and taking necessary ones.
The pandemic has produced at least a decade's worth of white-collar working practice change in six months, companies either need to deal with it or be replaced by those who do.
Right. A step change in remote working, video conferencing, flexible working, etc. More people will go back to the office eventually, but 100%? Not a chance, and it might not even reach 80%. COVID-19 has brought about the biggest change in how we work in a generation or two. Don't fight it, try to figure out how to capitalise on it.
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
There's a slice of activity- arts and theatre is one example- where the funding through hibernation probably ought to continue. In normal times, it makes a lot for UK plc, and we collectively want it to start well when normality resumes.
There's another slice- lunches for office workers, say- that probably isn't coming back. And brutally, if we want to reinvent Pret a Manger shops, it wouldn't be that difficult.
But even if this government were capable of telling the difference, can you imagine Boris the Populist telling some people that they're not saved?
Goodness me, I've just logged on after spending the day working (I know, I know..) and the evening watching Luisa Miller from the Met, to find that the LibDem leadership contest is actually over. Can this really be true? It seems like one of those things which you thought would never end, and then all of a sudden you find it's all over.
I even think I've made a small profit on it, from a bet I placed long ago that I'd forgotten about.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
They have done such a good job in scaring everyone to death that it is going to be very hard to undo now this side of a vaccine.
Quite why Boris expects me to resume spending 2 hours of my working day squeezing onto an overcrowded train and paying £200/mth for the privilege is beyond ne
Who will pay for railways in future? Presumably we can't scrap them so increased subsidies will be needed to replace the lost income from fares.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
We know that the Scandinavian model works because we can see that it has worked in Scandinavia. Getting there is, of course, the tricky bit.
The biggest part of the problem in the UK generally, and this will apply as much to Scotland as to the rest of the country, is the exorbitant cost of housing. People can't afford to shoulder a greatly increased tax burden at the same time as paying very high rent or mortgage costs.
So, to get from where we are now to the Scandi system, you need to whack your middle-income swing voters, as well as the Evil Rich Tories, with a ratchet of rising taxes and steady house-price deflation - depressing asset values (i.e. the net wealth of your better off voters, and the value of inheritances) whilst simultaneously striving to avoid tipping large numbers of mortgage payers into negative equity and crippling the banks in the process.
Oh, and you can't take the traditional British Left route of soaking businesses to get out of taxing your swing voters, either - because otherwise they will run away. Corporation tax in the Scandinavian countries is levied at 22%, only 3% above the UK rate.
So, you can have a comprehensive, generous and sustainable welfare state, but only with a thriving private sector and when you, personally, rather than "the rich," are prepared to pay through the nose for it.
If the SNP can get Scottish voters to swallow all of that then they deserve to be successful, but somehow I have my doubts.
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
There's a slice of activity- arts and theatre is one example- where the funding through hibernation probably ought to continue. In normal times, it makes a lot for UK plc, and we collectively want it to start well when normality resumes.
There's another slice- lunches for office workers, say- that probably isn't coming back. And brutally, if we want to reinvent Pret a Manger shops, it wouldn't be that difficult.
But even if this government were capable of telling the difference, can you imagine Boris the Populist telling some people that they're not saved?
As I said if an industry is still locked down (like theatres etc) then they should get targetted support.
Pret and restaurants are not locked down. If they don't have the customers then sorry that is the free market.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?
Why would they bother?
He's a man with who invented a curve with no scales, and that no one has ever proved to be valid.
Quite why Boris expects me to resume spending 2 hours of my working day squeezing onto an overcrowded train and paying £200/mth for the privilege is beyond ne
Who will pay for railways in future? Presumably we can't scrap them so increased subsidies will be needed to replace the lost income from fares.
Novel idea but how about the customers pay for them?
If they don't have customers, why are they operating?
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
There's a slice of activity- arts and theatre is one example- where the funding through hibernation probably ought to continue. In normal times, it makes a lot for UK plc, and we collectively want it to start well when normality resumes.
There's another slice- lunches for office workers, say- that probably isn't coming back. And brutally, if we want to reinvent Pret a Manger shops, it wouldn't be that difficult.
But even if this government were capable of telling the difference, can you imagine Boris the Populist telling some people that they're not saved?
Theatre is a great example - almost everyone is self-employed and make average money, but they all need to be paid to take a year off. Many will slip through the cracks of any government scheme, which might inadvertently protect the few on the very big salaries in the industry.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
If the SNP can get Scottish voters to swallow all of that then they deserve to be successful, but somehow I have my doubts.
The problem is they don't want to talk about it their whole economic currency & budget policy is "it'll be alright on the night".
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
Yes Nick get back to work!
We don't need spongers, benefit seekers or other LAB spongers. If they won't get back to work we stop their benefits.
Too right! Stop State Pensions right now, I say, and tell those lazy pensioners to get a job. NOW!
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
They have done such a good job in scaring everyone to death that it is going to be very hard to undo now this side of a vaccine.
This may, however, have a silver lining. I harbour this pet theory that a combination of very high WFH rates, and old people being both terrified and guilt-tripped into staying at home (so as not to burden the Holy NHS,) may explain why the UK shows little sign of going the way of France.
OTOH, I reckon that these voluntarily self-isolation habits may become so ingrained in some people that they find it very hard to return to anything resembling normal life, even after ways are found to reduce the transmission and lethality of the disease. Fast forward a couple of years and there'll still be meaningful numbers of people who are so afraid of contagion that they'll only leave their homes if forced by circumstances.
Breaking: Labour councillor criticizes Tory cabinet minister! I am shocked Sir, truly shocked.
But seriously, is this chap really inviting us to liken his classroom to a rave or something?
Well, my lessons are always a PARTAYYY.
("No they're not Sir." "Fair point, Scroggins Minor.")
The key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, it's the same thing: lots of bodies in close proximity. If I weren't on a strange pre-Coivid career break, I'd be doing all my lessons behind the perspex shield I have for chemistry demonstrations, thank you very much.
No the key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, is that they're very different.
The lessons are necessary and will have an associated risk to R. The parties are unnecessary and will have an associated risk to R.
The key is to try and keep R at one by eliminating unnecessary risks and taking necessary ones.
Absolutely. For the time being, we need wartime frugality with human proximity ("is your closeness really necessary?"). And schools are more necessary than raves. But that also means being frugal within schools, and acknowledging that a secondary teacher might easily have close encounters with 200 pupils in a week, and that needs managing. That management- whether it's masks, simplified timetable, or a great big perspex screen- doesn't seem as robust as it could be.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
They have done such a good job in scaring everyone to death that it is going to be very hard to undo now this side of a vaccine.
This may, however, have a silver lining. I harbour this pet theory that a combination of very high WFH rates, and old people being both terrified and guilt-tripped into staying at home (so as not to burden the Holy NHS,) may explain why the UK shows little sign of going the way of France.
OTOH, I reckon that these voluntarily self-isolation habits may become so ingrained in some people that they find it very hard to return to anything resembling normal life, even after ways are found to reduce the transmission and lethality of the disease. Fast forward a couple of years and there'll still be meaningful numbers of people who are so afraid of contagion that they'll only leave their homes if forced by circumstances.
It can't be a coincidence, I think we have one of the lowest rates of going back to to work in Europe and we're also not experiencing the same issues as France, as you say.
This Government's messaging was too good but frankly that's not my problem. I am happy WFH.
Goodness me, I've just logged on after spending the day working (I know, I know..) and the evening watching Luisa Miller from the Met, to find that the LibDem leadership contest is actually over. Can this really be true? It seems like one of those things which you thought would never end, and then all of a sudden you find it's all over.
I even think I've made a small profit on it, from a bet I placed long ago that I'd forgotten about.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment. The Government can order everyone to work from home if they need to, the concept of them ordering everyone who can either work from home or an office to head to an office is beyond farcical. And I say this as someone back in an office.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I hope your party listens - as somebody keeps briefing the papers. Time for Johnson to make his thoughts clear.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
If the SNP can get Scottish voters to swallow all of that then they deserve to be successful, but somehow I have my doubts.
The problem is they don't want to talk about it their whole economic currency & budget policy is "it'll be alright on the night".
And they've an excellent chance of success. If enough people either don't care about the dire economic warnings, don't believe them, or perhaps do believe at least some of them but think a bit of dislocation is a price worth paying, then Scexit will get across the finishing line, just like Brexit did.
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?
Why would they bother?
He's a man with who invented a curve with no scales, and that no one has ever proved to be valid.
The Scots seem to have provided him with some good evidence this year.
George Osborne did in 2011 too, cutting the top tax rate from a totemic 52% to 47% massively increased the returns.
Wait until $200bn Jeff Bezos buys himself an actual country, Richard Branson's island on a much bigger scale.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
Goodness me, I've just logged on after spending the day working (I know, I know..) and the evening watching Luisa Miller from the Met, to find that the LibDem leadership contest is actually over. Can this really be true? It seems like one of those things which you thought would never end, and then all of a sudden you find it's all over.
I even think I've made a small profit on it, from a bet I placed long ago that I'd forgotten about.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
Furloughed staff and staff working from home are two completely seperate issues.
The whole thing is steeped in arrogance and is frankly appalling.
People who WFH are still working and contributing to the economy, I am fed up with these "anonymous" briefings undermining the work we do
Then ignore them. The media plays this game all the time, they get a story they want to push - talk to many people until someone says something along the lines of what they want - then they say that its "anonymously" been briefed when reality is typically nothing of the sort.
Remember Peston saying he'd been briefed the Chancellor wasn't going to announce anything new economically about thirty minutes before he announced the furlough scheme?
The media are interested in clickbait. If a briefing has not got a name attached to it then do not trust it. If its a proper announcement it will have somebodies name attached to it.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
How do we explain this given all the Government's problems?
Possibly BLM / Proms related - ie even when people think Boris is incompetent / lazy / hopeless enough people will still vote for him as they support his values and think his heart is in the right place.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I don't think this is even a Tory viewpoint. Most people recognise that employers and employees are going to do what works best for themselves, for some that will be working from home, for others back to the office, and for a lot it will be a mix of the two from now on. But it's not the government's call, and trying to guilt trip or threaten people into returning to town and city centres is futile. Many jobs will be lost, but they are going to be lost because their work is either gone or much diminished, not because people are being irrational in avoiding the office.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
Tell me why I should go back to the office
You might have - most have been on the Netflix paid for by taxpayers!
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How?
Extending the furlough, government taking stakes in such business, loans etc.
Which might work for strategic industries, for example Rolls Royce Aero who just posted a £5bn loss, but it doesn't work for Pret and similar City support businesses, who face an inevitable bankruptcy no matter what government support is extended. No-one is going to argue for government taking shares in restaurants.
People working in restaurants/hospitality industries will argue for government taking shares or some other support.
Or they'll go find another job. Its a high churn industry at the best of times.
During lockdown that wasn't viable but now lockdown is over it is.
That will only work, rather obviously, for those people who actually manage to find another job. One rather suspects that there'll be a great deal fewer vacancies than increasingly desperate applicants for quite a long time to come.
There comes a point to rip off the bandaid and find out.
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
I never said that it was - it's just that the process of getting millions of unemployed back into work again won't necessarily be so smart and easy as you tried to make it sound, either.
This could all too easily end up as a repeat of the early 80s - not enough work to go around, a lot of younger people on the dole for years, and with many over-50s discovering that they are now on the scrapheap and may never work again.
It was right for the UK to go through the 80s even if it was difficult. But I don't think it will be that difficult anyway.
* I don't think millions of people work at Pret in London. * I doubt there that many over-50s working at Pret in London. * We are starting off from full employment. * Haven't we been told for years that there are no employees to be found for these jobs so we need to import migrants to do them?
Shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.
Just one in 50 applicants for jobs at Pret a Manger are British, its director of human resources told a parliamentary committee.
The high street chain employs 110 different nationalities with 65% of its workforce coming from EU countries other than Britain, Andrea Wareham told the House of Lords economic affairs select committee on Wednesday.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
You might not have noticed, but that is exactly what they will be doing.
Should employers and employees decide that working from home works for them, that really isn’t the business of government, Signs are that many businesses will decide exactly that. It seems to work particularly well for accountants.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I hope your party listens - as somebody keeps briefing the papers. Time for Johnson to make his thoughts clear.
Johnson and Hancock have repeatedly and the media keeps slotting out these tired stories again and again and again.
And still people click on them. Ignore clickbait, if it hasn't got a name attached it isn't news.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
Tell me why I should go back to the office
You might have - most have been on the Netflix paid for by taxpayers!
That's furlough, a seperate issue to WFH. Anyone WFH hasn't been on Netflix paid for by the taxpayer, they might have been on Netflix paid for by their employer but there's no taxpayer cost to that.
Telegraph says Johnson will be launching a campaign to get people into the office, one of the things will be saying it is easier to sack you if you WFH. This is a pathetic attempt at guilt tripping.
Telegraph says Johnson will be launching a campaign to get people into the office, one of the things will be saying it is easier to sack you if you WFH. This is a pathetic attempt at guilt tripping.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I hope your party listens - as somebody keeps briefing the papers. Time for Johnson to make his thoughts clear.
Johnson and Hancock have repeatedly and the media keeps slotting out these tired stories again and again and again.
And still people click on them. Ignore clickbait, if it hasn't got a name attached it isn't news.
See above. We'll see next week if this supposed campaign starts
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?
Why would they bother?
He's a man with who invented a curve with no scales, and that no one has ever proved to be valid.
The Scots seem to have provided him with some good evidence this year.
George Osborne did in 2011 too, cutting the top tax rate from a totemic 52% to 47% massively increased the returns.
You got some evidence to support that assertion?
Income tax revenue as a proportion of GDP fell every year from 2011 to 2016.
Boris Johnson will launch a media blitz to encourage people back to work.
Boris Johnson will launch a major drive to get Britain back to the office as ministers warn working from home will make people more “vulnerable” to being sacked. A publicity campaign to begin next week will extol the virtues of returning to the workplace, making the “emotional case” for mixing with colleagues and highlighting the benefits to mental health.
It will also provide reassurance that “the workplace is a safe place”, while a new online tool will help people avoid the most crowded trains and buses. While the media blitz – to be launched at the end of next week once schools in England have reopened – will focus on the positives of returning to the office, ministers are already warning of the negatives of home working as part of a carrot and stick approach. They have sent out the message that bosses at struggling firms will find it easier to hand out P45s to people they never see than to colleagues who have been at their desks during the pandemic.
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I hope your party listens - as somebody keeps briefing the papers. Time for Johnson to make his thoughts clear.
Johnson and Hancock have repeatedly and the media keeps slotting out these tired stories again and again and again.
And still people click on them. Ignore clickbait, if it hasn't got a name attached it isn't news.
See above. We'll see next week if this supposed campaign starts
We will see. I hope it either does not, or if an awareness scheme is launched that the Telegraph has completely misrepresented it.
There is no justification to pressure people into returning to the office and I will oppose that if it happens. Am I clear enough for you?
He doesn't extend the furlough scheme he's going to become very unpopular very quickly.
Furlough made sense in the spring and summer when we were in lockdown and businesses couldn't legally trade, but given that lockdown has been lifted now why is it still required?
Surely (barring some extreme cases which maybe should be dealt with separately) any businesses still furloughing simply are failed businesses unlikely to reopen now?
I know some focus groups taking place, and the view of plenty of voters is that the elite bailed out bankers, then anyone losing their jobs when furlough ends should also get bailed out.
How about those who have already lost their jobs ?
@NickPalmer we did the same, 30 are going back out of 200, rest don't want to yet.
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
No the Tories are in favour of companies being left to their own devices.
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
I hope your party listens - as somebody keeps briefing the papers. Time for Johnson to make his thoughts clear.
Johnson and Hancock have repeatedly and the media keeps slotting out these tired stories again and again and again.
And still people click on them. Ignore clickbait, if it hasn't got a name attached it isn't news.
See above. We'll see next week if this supposed campaign starts
We will see. I hope it either does not, or if an awareness scheme is launched that the Telegraph has completely misrepresented it.
There is no justification to pressure people into returning to the office and I will oppose that if it happens. Am I clear enough for you?
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen
Boris Johnson will launch a media blitz to encourage people back to work.
Boris Johnson will launch a major drive to get Britain back to the office as ministers warn working from home will make people more “vulnerable” to being sacked. A publicity campaign to begin next week will extol the virtues of returning to the workplace, making the “emotional case” for mixing with colleagues and highlighting the benefits to mental health.
It will also provide reassurance that “the workplace is a safe place”, while a new online tool will help people avoid the most crowded trains and buses. While the media blitz – to be launched at the end of next week once schools in England have reopened – will focus on the positives of returning to the office, ministers are already warning of the negatives of home working as part of a carrot and stick approach. They have sent out the message that bosses at struggling firms will find it easier to hand out P45s to people they never see than to colleagues who have been at their desks during the pandemic.
Telegraph - seems pretty clear to me
The campaign sounds like bullshit. We'll see.
The online tool sounds useful and something that makes sense to do in its own right.
We seem to have absent-mindedly elected a Government that feels it can tell employers what to do. We surveyed staff, found they overwhelmingly didn't want to go back to the office, so it's staying shut. Our decision is literally none of Ministers' business.
When people work from home they may be personally better off by saving money on commuting. However, the economy as a whole tends to get smaller as a result, and this affects everyone. Working from home has consequences for society as well as employees and employers. The government already tells employers what to do, e.g. how much tax to pay.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
Tell me why I should go back to the office
You might have - most have been on the Netflix paid for by taxpayers!
That's furlough, a seperate issue to WFH. Anyone WFH hasn't been on Netflix paid for by the taxpayer, they might have been on Netflix paid for by their employer but there's no taxpayer cost to that.
'Separate' luv.
Let's get people off furlough, welfare, UC and get them back to work
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen
You won't be sacked for that, that's not what they are saying.
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
That's because it is a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea. All it will do is piss off a huge number of people who are working from home now, many of them happily doing so.
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen
You won't be sacked for that, that's not what they are saying.
They're strongly implying it, read the Telegraph account.
"You're more likely to be fired if you WFH" is what they're saying, how on Earth can they prove that
Telegraph says Johnson will be launching a campaign to get people into the office, one of the things will be saying it is easier to sack you if you WFH. This is a pathetic attempt at guilt tripping.
Let's just stop all benefits and sack spongers
How are you going to sack the unemployed 'spongers'?
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
It seems to be a very metropolitan issue.
Towns seem to be operating reasonably - though many weren't doing well in any case - and adapting.
But perhaps after a certain size is reached an urban area will struggle to adapt.
And its in cities that a lot of money has been invested.
I thought we were going to stop these briefings, now "go back to work or lose your job"?
It's the only sensible way
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
It's up to employers whether or not they want their staff back in an office, not the goverment.
The government needs to turn off the handouts - this will encourage employers to reach the right decision, the government should not be paying for people to have a 6 month + holiday.
What do you think people who WFH have been doing? We haven't all been sat around claiming benefits, I've - luckily - held a job this entire time.
Tell me why I should go back to the office
You might have - most have been on the Netflix paid for by taxpayers!
That's furlough, a seperate issue to WFH. Anyone WFH hasn't been on Netflix paid for by the taxpayer, they might have been on Netflix paid for by their employer but there's no taxpayer cost to that.
'Separate' luv.
Let's get people off furlough, welfare, UC and get them back to work
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
Even the Telegraph article isn't suggesting the state would do that.
The article is saying that they would warn people of the risks. If a business eg has 60 staff 30 working in the office and 30 working from home, then they decide they need to restructure and go down to 30, then will they keep the 30 who've been going in or the thirty working from home? Its a stupid hypothetical and none of the Governments damn business.
Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen
You won't be sacked for that, that's not what they are saying.
They're strongly implying it, read the Telegraph account.
"You're more likely to be fired if you WFH" is what they're saying, how on Earth can they prove that
If you are never needed in the office, why are they paying someone the big bucks to live in London or the surrounding areas when they can get someone from far cheaper to do it all remotely.
Comments
Once people fill vacancies in positions that need staff then they can be productive, leading to more demand elsewhere, leading to more job vacancies elsewhere and it is a positive feedback loop.
Paying people to stay at home and do nothing is not a long term solution.
Quite frankly its no bad thing if overcrowded trains turn out not to be so necessary afterall.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1299089302127869963?s=20
Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....
The problem you may find Philip, is there aren't going to be too many other jobs to find!
This could all too easily end up as a repeat of the early 80s - not enough work to go around, a lot of younger people on the dole for years, and with many over-50s discovering that they are now on the scrapheap and may never work again.
("No they're not Sir."
"Fair point, Scroggins Minor.")
The key thing is that, from the point of view of a virus, it's the same thing: lots of bodies in close proximity. If I weren't on a strange pre-Coivid career break, I'd be doing all my lessons behind the perspex shield I have for chemistry demonstrations, thank you very much.
The one advantage the government might have is that a lot of the London service workers are immigrants, who may leave the country rather than claim unemployment.
The pandemic has produced at least a decade's worth of white-collar working practice change in six months, companies either need to deal with it or be replaced by those who do.
* I don't think millions of people work at Pret in London.
* I doubt there that many over-50s working at Pret in London.
* We are starting off from full employment.
* Haven't we been told for years that there are no employees to be found for these jobs so we need to import migrants to do them?
Shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.
And in local service oriented computer shops.
Sturgeon has destroyed the Scottish economy even though under their watch COVID is completely out of control!
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1299020152978145281?s=20
It's absolutely nuts but I loved it
We don't need spongers, benefit seekers or other LAB spongers. If they won't get back to work we stop their benefits.
The lessons are necessary and will have an associated risk to R.
The parties are unnecessary and will have an associated risk to R.
The key is to try and keep R at one by eliminating unnecessary risks and taking necessary ones.
There's another slice- lunches for office workers, say- that probably isn't coming back. And brutally, if we want to reinvent Pret a Manger shops, it wouldn't be that difficult.
But even if this government were capable of telling the difference, can you imagine Boris the Populist telling some people that they're not saved?
I even think I've made a small profit on it, from a bet I placed long ago that I'd forgotten about.
The biggest part of the problem in the UK generally, and this will apply as much to Scotland as to the rest of the country, is the exorbitant cost of housing. People can't afford to shoulder a greatly increased tax burden at the same time as paying very high rent or mortgage costs.
So, to get from where we are now to the Scandi system, you need to whack your middle-income swing voters, as well as the Evil Rich Tories, with a ratchet of rising taxes and steady house-price deflation - depressing asset values (i.e. the net wealth of your better off voters, and the value of inheritances) whilst simultaneously striving to avoid tipping large numbers of mortgage payers into negative equity and crippling the banks in the process.
Oh, and you can't take the traditional British Left route of soaking businesses to get out of taxing your swing voters, either - because otherwise they will run away. Corporation tax in the Scandinavian countries is levied at 22%, only 3% above the UK rate.
So, you can have a comprehensive, generous and sustainable welfare state, but only with a thriving private sector and when you, personally, rather than "the rich," are prepared to pay through the nose for it.
If the SNP can get Scottish voters to swallow all of that then they deserve to be successful, but somehow I have my doubts.
Pret and restaurants are not locked down. If they don't have the customers then sorry that is the free market.
He's a man with who invented a curve with no scales, and that no one has ever proved to be valid.
If they don't have customers, why are they operating?
Huh, BBC more popular with younger voters
It's perfectly safe
We don't need furlough or benefits anymore - people need to get back to work now
The messaging from this government is a total mess.
How on earth did they win Brexit vote? Must be a different set of people.
People who WFH are still working and contributing to the economy, I am fed up with these "anonymous" briefings undermining the work we do
I thought the Tories were in favour of companies being left to their own devices, now they want to tell them what to do?
Its a shame not to have numbers either to make the thing meaningful. Only one in four think the licence fee should continue is utterly damning though.
OTOH, I reckon that these voluntarily self-isolation habits may become so ingrained in some people that they find it very hard to return to anything resembling normal life, even after ways are found to reduce the transmission and lethality of the disease. Fast forward a couple of years and there'll still be meaningful numbers of people who are so afraid of contagion that they'll only leave their homes if forced by circumstances.
This Government's messaging was too good but frankly that's not my problem. I am happy WFH.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1299036633199710208
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8671855/Im-fed-paying-woke-BBC-writes-former-broadcaster-JAN-LEEMING.html
Some in the media and briefing the media are not but that's been the case for months. Tory policy - and as far as I can tell unanimously every single Tory here - is that it is for companies to decide.
The Government can order everyone to work from home if they need to, the concept of them ordering everyone who can either work from home or an office to head to an office is beyond farcical. And I say this as someone back in an office.
George Osborne did in 2011 too, cutting the top tax rate from a totemic 52% to 47% massively increased the returns.
Wait until $200bn Jeff Bezos buys himself an actual country, Richard Branson's island on a much bigger scale.
Tell me why I should go back to the office
Remember Peston saying he'd been briefed the Chancellor wasn't going to announce anything new economically about thirty minutes before he announced the furlough scheme?
The media are interested in clickbait. If a briefing has not got a name attached to it then do not trust it. If its a proper announcement it will have somebodies name attached to it.
The high street chain employs 110 different nationalities with 65% of its workforce coming from EU countries other than Britain, Andrea Wareham told the House of Lords economic affairs select committee on Wednesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/08/pret-a-manger-one-in-50-job-applicants-british-brexit
Should employers and employees decide that working from home works for them, that really isn’t the business of government, Signs are that many businesses will decide exactly that.
It seems to work particularly well for accountants.
And still people click on them. Ignore clickbait, if it hasn't got a name attached it isn't news.
Telegraph says Johnson will be launching a campaign to get people into the office, one of the things will be saying it is easier to sack you if you WFH. This is a pathetic attempt at guilt tripping.
Income tax revenue as a proportion of GDP fell every year from 2011 to 2016.
Boris Johnson will launch a major drive to get Britain back to the office as ministers warn working from home will make people more “vulnerable” to being sacked.
A publicity campaign to begin next week will extol the virtues of returning to the workplace, making the “emotional case” for mixing with colleagues and highlighting the benefits to mental health.
It will also provide reassurance that “the workplace is a safe place”, while a new online tool will help people avoid the most crowded trains and buses.
While the media blitz – to be launched at the end of next week once schools in England have reopened – will focus on the positives of returning to the office, ministers are already warning of the negatives of home working as part of a carrot and stick approach.
They have sent out the message that bosses at struggling firms will find it easier to hand out P45s to people they never see than to colleagues who have been at their desks during the pandemic.
Telegraph - seems pretty clear to me
I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.
There is no justification to pressure people into returning to the office and I will oppose that if it happens. Am I clear enough for you?
https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809?s=20
Has she been put out to pasture, as someone recently suggested for the PM ?
The online tool sounds useful and something that makes sense to do in its own right.
Let's get people off furlough, welfare, UC and get them back to work
"You're more likely to be fired if you WFH" is what they're saying, how on Earth can they prove that
Towns seem to be operating reasonably - though many weren't doing well in any case - and adapting.
But perhaps after a certain size is reached an urban area will struggle to adapt.
And its in cities that a lot of money has been invested.
The article is saying that they would warn people of the risks. If a business eg has 60 staff 30 working in the office and 30 working from home, then they decide they need to restructure and go down to 30, then will they keep the 30 who've been going in or the thirty working from home? Its a stupid hypothetical and none of the Governments damn business.