I will be surprised if Harris is not President by 2023. The Democrats choice this time around is truly bizarre. A man who was not the sharpest knife in the drawer at any stage who is clearly fading. What on earth were they thinking? This is one of the most demanding jobs in the world, it ages and exhausts much younger and fitter men. I just don't see how anyone can seriously argue that Biden is capable of fulfilling such a role.
If I was an American I would vote for Biden because Trump is malevolent and malignant, apparently indifferent to the damage he has done to US institutions and institutional structures but I would do so with a heavy heart and very much reliant upon the fact that Harris seems competent and capable if not particularly sociable. An enhanced role for her has to be a part of the deal from the beginning leading to her taking over completely mid term.
Who would you have preferred from the Dem contenders?
It was not a strong field. If I had been involved in Democrat management I would have been wondering about why some of their governors were not in the race such as Whitmer or Walz from Minnesota (both of these would probably nail down a key swing state too).
Ideally you want someone late 40s early 50s with good public service records and some experience of actually running things. Buttigieg was interesting but probably too inexperienced. Biden is just too old, bordering on senile, too Washington insider.
By putting in a guy who won't make a four year term, the Dems are inviting the argument that "You couldn't get a woman President by fair means. Now you are going to do it - by the back door. And a non-white woman to boot."
We'd all like to think that Ameria isn't racist and misogynist, but ignoring evidence that it is - well, that's inviting a loss....
I'm WFH because most people in my company don't want to use public transport (including me) and our company has seen no reductions in productivity during this period, so there is no rush to get back.
We can't get back to 100% capacity with social distancing guidelines so this seems entirely contradictory to me.
And wearing a mask for 8 hours a day? 2.5 hours watching Tenet was awful enough
Thinking about the government's "return to work" message: it would probably be best for them if they didn't have people who got Coronavirus whilst at work to deliver the message.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
But Mr Hancock is (a) reportedly a wet on this anyway within the current Cabinet (to borrow an old expression) and (b) directly responsible for health rather than maintaining, say, shareholders' profits in property companies.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
I will be surprised if Harris is not President by 2023. The Democrats choice this time around is truly bizarre. A man who was not the sharpest knife in the drawer at any stage who is clearly fading. What on earth were they thinking? This is one of the most demanding jobs in the world, it ages and exhausts much younger and fitter men. I just don't see how anyone can seriously argue that Biden is capable of fulfilling such a role.
If I was an American I would vote for Biden because Trump is malevolent and malignant, apparently indifferent to the damage he has done to US institutions and institutional structures but I would do so with a heavy heart and very much reliant upon the fact that Harris seems competent and capable if not particularly sociable. An enhanced role for her has to be a part of the deal from the beginning leading to her taking over completely mid term.
Who would you have preferred from the Dem contenders?
It was not a strong field. If I had been involved in Democrat management I would have been wondering about why some of their governors were not in the race such as Whitmer or Walz from Minnesota (both of these would probably nail down a key swing state too).
Ideally you want someone late 40s early 50s with good public service records and some experience of actually running things. Buttigieg was interesting but probably too inexperienced. Biden is just too old, bordering on senile, too Washington insider.
As some wag remarked, Mayor Pete could run in 2060 and still be younger than Biden!
My hope is that Biden is a smart delegator and wise to his own limitations, something the current incumbent most decidedly is not!
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
In response to MM, this is what will happen by default with occasional forays into the parliamentary battle field where conditions are favorable. The party is built on community activists which is where we, or in my case was, mot comfortable. The only game changer is a meltdown war within the Labour Party opening up new opportunities for us.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Following the discussion in the previous thread re: where is the north, I did a bit of doodling.
If you divide the UK into thirds based on constituency populations and boundaries, and OS grid north, this is what you get. It seems Hendon is in the Midlands.
Strangley enough, the line delineating the "North" is where a lot of people put it. Sheffield is North, but only just. Same for Liverpool.
Shading is based on population density. Each primary colour has roughly the same population total.
Love it.
So @AlastairMeeks not so far off with Old Street Station.
For the Midlands, not the North.
Ah that is true. But still Hendon in the Midlands is still moving the window.
I put the boundaries as North/Midlands border as Sandbach Services on the M6, South/Midlands border as Watford Gap on the M1. Seems reasonably close to that map, at least on the North side which is what matters
Yes I saw that. You're a bit North for the start of the Midlands. As I said, the demarcation is the Black Cat Roundabout. Because Northampton is in the midlands and your line would have it in the South.
I don't think I've ever driven that stretch of the A1 so I'm not familiar with it. I picked those Services because its the M1/M6 I'm familiar with. The only difference seems to be Northampton, you're essentially putting Milton Keynes as the South and Northampton in the Midlands right? I can live with that. Milton Keynes is definitely in the South, I'm not that familiar with Northampton.
I don't know if there's a Services between Milton Keynes and Northampton to take the place of Watford Gap?
My daughter got a new job yesterday with the SSSC who regulate social care workers in Scotland. We are absolutely delighted for her, its her first graduate level job and a real opportunity but it did make me think about WFH once again.
She has been told that no one will be in the office until after Christmas at the earliest, that all of her training for her new post will be online and that she will subsequently WFH for months. As a newbie in the organisation I think that this is a tremendous challenge for her. How does she get to know her team members, to socialise with them, to build the networks that can help her when she is unsure what to do? How does she find ways to expand her role and acquire the additional experience that might help her seek promotion one day?
I think WFH works tolerably well for people who already have all of that in place and for people established in their role. For those just starting out, like my daughter, it's a whole other ball game. Those promoting it seem to me to have something of the "I'm alright Jack" mentality about it and are giving insufficient thought or concern about the next generation.
I have been doing versions of this for fifteen years and it is entirely possible to manage and train people remotely. It does require training to be more systematic when you can't just observe others and it also requires your colleagues to make time available to you, which they may or may not do off their own bats. My advice to your daughter is to be a little bit pushy. If she sets up one-to-ones in her manager's and colleagues' diaries to go over the requirement, most times they will accept them.
From what you have said earlier, your daughter has had an uphill struggle to find suitable work in these grim times. Well done her to land this role.
I would hope that she fits in some days out shadowing Social workers. Anyone who wants some credibility as a regulator needs to understand work at the coalface. Regulating is different to doing it, but shouldn't be totally detached either.
It is social care workers of which social workers only form about 10% but yes, I agree. If you understand the pressures that those you are regulating are operating on you will have a much better feel for what really went wrong.
I think one of the worst examples of regulation I have seen in recent times was that striking off that was ultimately overturned of the junior doctor who had been left trying to cope when her consultant had sodded off. No one who understood the role of a junior doctor or the resources (not) available would have made that mistake.
I fear that once again Covid is going to make this more difficult however.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
I'm no LibDem, but I agree with all of that. And I do think that it was the broken pledge on tuition fees that really screwed the LibDem image more than anything else.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
But Mr Hancock is (a) reportedly a wet on this anyway within the current Cabinet (to borrow an old expression) and (b) directly responsible for health rather than maintaining, say, shareholders' profits in property companies.
Yes Mr Hancock is in the Cabinet and in one of the positions that matter the most. Whoever briefed that stinking pile of bovine manure to the Telegraph probably isn't.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance. i It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
I'm no LibDem, but I agree with all of that. And I do think that it was the broken pledge on tuition fees that really screwed the LibDem image more than anything else.
It wasn't just that, it was taking a side in the first place in 2010 combined with refusing to take one in 2015. Even without tuition fees the Lib Dems would struggle. The idea it was just tuition fees isn't true and doesn't explain why the Tories won nearly half the Lib Dems seats.
Pre-2010 the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Tory candidate" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Labour candidate". Effectively 2015 though the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, you could get a Tory government" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, you could get a Labour government".
Their ambiguity pre-2010 was a strength. 2015 plus it has been a weakness.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
Exactly. They will never be forgiven for actually getting into government.*
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
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.
We've been told that those informal chats whilst making tea/coffee are very much banned when the office reopens.
I get that the government can see serious trouble coming, but they need to accept it rather than fight it.
When (not if) most workplaces are adapted for home-working, the main problem for employees is that it doesn’t really matter for owners and managers if personnel are at home in London, Glasgow, Frankfurt, Naples, Zurich, Nairobi, Mumbai, Jakarta, Toronto or Santiago.
Many people have romantic ideas of moving to nice places like Devon, the Cotswolds, the Hebrides or rural France, and working from home there. While this is certainly going to happen in the short term (the Scottish rural property market is red-hot), in the long-term most are gonna be screwed by more productive foreign workers.
Working from home does not necessarily make you less productive, in some cases it can make you more productive and you can still go in for meetings where needed.
If outsourcing takes place it will be because the company thinks the job can be done to the same quality at cheaper cost and WFH makes little difference
I will be surprised if Harris is not President by 2023. The Democrats choice this time around is truly bizarre. A man who was not the sharpest knife in the drawer at any stage who is clearly fading. What on earth were they thinking? This is one of the most demanding jobs in the world, it ages and exhausts much younger and fitter men. I just don't see how anyone can seriously argue that Biden is capable of fulfilling such a role.
If I was an American I would vote for Biden because Trump is malevolent and malignant, apparently indifferent to the damage he has done to US institutions and institutional structures but I would do so with a heavy heart and very much reliant upon the fact that Harris seems competent and capable if not particularly sociable. An enhanced role for her has to be a part of the deal from the beginning leading to her taking over completely mid term.
Who would you have preferred from the Dem contenders?
It was not a strong field. If I had been involved in Democrat management I would have been wondering about why some of their governors were not in the race such as Whitmer or Walz from Minnesota (both of these would probably nail down a key swing state too).
Ideally you want someone late 40s early 50s with good public service records and some experience of actually running things. Buttigieg was interesting but probably too inexperienced. Biden is just too old, bordering on senile, too Washington insider.
As some wag remarked, Mayor Pete could run in 2060 and still be younger than Biden!
My hope is that Biden is a smart delegator and wise to his own limitations, something the current incumbent most decidedly is not!
The problem is that if he is elected he is going to be President in decidedly interesting times. The US response to Covid has been a disaster and the economic consequences of that will dominate the early part of his term. The relationships with allies, so damaged under Trump, will need to be rebuilt. Trump is not entirely wrong about the Chinese threat either and difficult times will arise in the Pacific along with protection of IP etc. The leadership role of international institutions has been largely abandoned by Trump: does the US want it back? So little has been done about crumbling infrastructure.
It's not as if the next President will have a quiet time, quite the opposite.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Work from home - my mental health struggles adjusting to this new decade have played out on here so I'm probably not the most obvious advocate for WFH. But I am - it is economic and societal progress. We needed offices and commuting when white collar jobs could only be carried out in a central location. Technology has largely eradicated this need and the things people complain gently about (Zoom functionality etc) will be ironed out once this crash test phase becomes normal.
Yes, it means a sizeable shift in economic activity. But to pair it back it is removing a wholly redundant economic activity - the commute. We have literally structured our environment around the need to work centrally, creating myriad problems. The removal of the commute means we lose jobs as fewer people travel, fewer people waste money on twatty coffee they'd rather not buy etc etc. But arguing against this progress is to argue against the progress of the industrial revolution or the internet.
If nothing else we face an Environmental catastrophe that governments have been slow responding to. A significant drop in pointless commuting and a move towards distributed living will have a positive impact to the environment, to our health and thus bring economic benefits.
Having been made redundant this week I feel the pain of the tens of thousands also being made redundant. Its in everyone's best interests that we drive positive economic transformation (Build Back Better if you like...) and do so quickly. Rather than finding ways to force pointless consumption to preserve low paid jobs of employers who have interesting takes on tax (*cough Starbucks*).
I suspect largely similar numbers of buses and trains are still going to be running. The environmental savings will be slight - all comprising fewer car journies (but they are all going to be electric within 14 years and many of them much sooner than that. (Although without at least one person commuting by car in a family, the need for multiple car ownership in a family also ends.)
There is an opportunity for Government to acknowledge that working from home for many is going to leave people with far more time of their own. How many people actually enjoy the couple of hours each way of getting up/showered/shaved/dressed in work gear/getting to the station/the train or tube journey itself/getting from the station to the office/buying or making a coffee before settling in to the day and then doing it in reverse versus (WFH) of settling in to the day.
I appreciate this change is a complete head-fuck for Government. But surely, somebody like Cummings was made for this task? "We are going to give you the equivalent of 5 weeks a year more holiday - your time, to spend as you want - by not having to commute...." Give people tax breaks over five years to put a shed/shepherd's hut in the garden or an attic conversion to work from. Upgrade their wifi. A cash incentive to get rid of multiple cars. No stamp duty on city dwellings converted from office space. Or on any inner city dwellings for that matter.
Point out how life will be better. Embrace the change.
Covid has given that change a kick up the arse that no Government would otherwise have dared do.
Following the discussion in the previous thread re: where is the north, I did a bit of doodling.
If you divide the UK into thirds based on constituency populations and boundaries, and OS grid north, this is what you get. It seems Hendon is in the Midlands.
Strangley enough, the line delineating the "North" is where a lot of people put it. Sheffield is North, but only just. Same for Liverpool.
Shading is based on population density. Each primary colour has roughly the same population total.
Love it.
So @AlastairMeeks not so far off with Old Street Station.
For the Midlands, not the North.
Ah that is true. But still Hendon in the Midlands is still moving the window.
I put the boundaries as North/Midlands border as Sandbach Services on the M6, South/Midlands border as Watford Gap on the M1. Seems reasonably close to that map, at least on the North side which is what matters
Yes I saw that. You're a bit North for the start of the Midlands. As I said, the demarcation is the Black Cat Roundabout. Because Northampton is in the midlands and your line would have it in the South.
I don't think I've ever driven that stretch of the A1 so I'm not familiar with it. I picked those Services because its the M1/M6 I'm familiar with. The only difference seems to be Northampton, you're essentially putting Milton Keynes as the South and Northampton in the Midlands right? I can live with that. Milton Keynes is definitely in the South, I'm not that familiar with Northampton.
I don't know if there's a Services between Milton Keynes and Northampton to take the place of Watford Gap?
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
But Mr Hancock is (a) reportedly a wet on this anyway within the current Cabinet (to borrow an old expression) and (b) directly responsible for health rather than maintaining, say, shareholders' profits in property companies.
Yes Mr Hancock is in the Cabinet and in one of the positions that matter the most. Whoever briefed that stinking pile of bovine manure to the Telegraph probably isn't.
But could the briefer still be part of the UK Government? A certain figure has returned to work recently, after all.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
And how would such a Government ever pass any English only laws?
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
Exactly. They will never be forgiven for actually getting into government.*
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
Riddle me this: how did the Scottish Lib Dems come out of 8 years of coalition with Labour at Holyrood with a higher vote share in 2007 than 1999 but the National Lib Dems get completely destroyed in 2015.
Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish LIB Dems enacted policies their voters approved of and the UK wide Lib Dems did not?
It is an outrageous suggestion I know but it could be something to do with that.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
There won’t be a coalition and unlikely to be a c&s arrangement if the situation arose. They would vote on an issue by issue basis, I can’t see them ever tying themselves to another party again unless the whole nature of politics changes and people are actually able to trust each other without being shafted.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Labour would likely say, the SNP can vote us down if they so wish and explain to their constituents why they put the Tories back in.
Of course in this scenario I assume Johnson would have to resign for that to happen, which he might well not until he'd lost a vote.
Would be an interesting Parliament though, because we could have it reform without an election which even last time around wasn't really possible
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Unless the Tories backed EEA the LDs would obviously go with Starmer Labour and the LDs
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
There won’t be a coalition and unlikely to be a c&s arrangement if the situation arose. They would vote on an issue by issue basis, I can’t see them ever tying themselves to another party again unless the whole nature of politics changes and people are actually able to trust each other without being shafted.
C&S at most but I suspect in reality Labour says vote us down if you so wish.
But what would be confusing to me is if Johnson refused to resign, I think he would have the first chance to get a QS through but even losing this doesn't mean he resigns does it? How would he go?
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
And how would such a Government ever pass any English only laws?
Very easily. They just have to be ones approved by a majority of MPs for Emglish constituencies.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
Exactly. They will never be forgiven for actually getting into government.*
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
Riddle me this: how did the Scottish Lib Dems come out of 8 years of coalition with Labour at Holyrood with a higher vote share in 2007 than 1999 but the National Lib Dems get completely destroyed in 2015.
Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish LIB Dems enacted policies their voters approved of and the UK wide Lib Dems did not?
It is an outrageous suggestion I know but it could be something to do with that.
We are talking about National Government. Not some far off land of which we know little.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Unless the Tories backed EEA the LDs would obviously go with Starmer Labour and the LDs
Not everything in 2024 is going to be about Brexit ffs.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Unless the Tories backed EEA the LDs would obviously go with Starmer Labour and the LDs
Not everything in 2024 is going to be about Brexit ffs.
He is obsessed with it.
If we're still talking about Brexit as the main issue, Johnson has failed to deliver it and so why would voters trust him again?
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
Exactly. They will never be forgiven for actually getting into government.*
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
Riddle me this: how did the Scottish Lib Dems come out of 8 years of coalition with Labour at Holyrood with a higher vote share in 2007 than 1999 but the National Lib Dems get completely destroyed in 2015.
Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish LIB Dems enacted policies their voters approved of and the UK wide Lib Dems did not?
It is an outrageous suggestion I know but it could be something to do with that.
We are talking about National Government. Not some far off land of which we know little.
One decides how to spend its pocket money; the other has to decide how to earn the money it wants to spend.
I'm WFH because most people in my company don't want to use public transport (including me) and our company has seen no reductions in productivity during this period, so there is no rush to get back.
We can't get back to 100% capacity with social distancing guidelines so this seems entirely contradictory to me.
And wearing a mask for 8 hours a day? 2.5 hours watching Tenet was awful enough
If you are working from home you are not absent, just working from home, offshoring will take place to cut costs, indeed having workers at home will cut office costs while keeping productivity the same so this is a pointless point
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
Agreed. Davey is perhaps not the most inspiring of politicians, but there’s a market for honest competence, currently ill supplied (on both counts). If he wants credit for honesty, he needs to address the tuition fee history
The root cause of their refusal to negotiate is that the Brexiteer government is unwilling to be open with the people (or probably themselves) is that Brexit has consequences, all of which are negative.
They can't commit to obligations with a negative effect. Which means they can't negotiate. The whole purpose of treaties is that they are commitments to obligations.
Yes. "We won't let foreigners dictate our laws" doesn't fit well with the American government dictating a downgrading in food standards and deregulation of pharma markets and corresponding whopping cost increases. So instead we get NDAs.
The bigger and more important you are to the counter-party the better the deal you get. We are making ourselves smaller and less important than the EU deals we are tearing up. The UK bilateral deals will be worse than we have now.
The effect of no trade deal will be to make whatever delicacy you're importing from the EU a little more expensive. Will this make you stop? I doubt it, because the effect will be marginal, and presumably you have a product that has a good mark up, and trades strongly on positive country of origin associations. If it is going to kill anyone's product, either way, it's not the right product.
*sigh* What will literally kill product is the extensive delay in transit. The stuff I will be importing has a month of shelf life. The stuff with days of shelf life is buggered. As for "a good mark up" let me explain reality. Supermarkets aren't making much money selling groceries - and the significant swing into loss-making online makes wafer-thin margins even more marginal. Manufacturers aren't making much money making groceries - some sectors are better than others but many many factories are on the edge. Same with the wholesale sector. Foodservice is on its knees.
The massive cost loading of all these new forms and checks and customs agents and the massive costs of the delays in processing all of this and the impact on the movement and thus availability of vehicles can't be borne by the retailer. Or the manufacturer. The "good mark up" isn't there mate. No, it will be borne by the consumer. Whose lack of money in our high cost of living society has already driven out all the bunce in costings. Everything will cost more. Some things a lot more. With far worse availability.
"So tonight," he added, "I ask you a very simple question - how can the Democrat party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?
"In the left's backward view, they do not see America as the most free, just and exceptional nation on earth. Instead, they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins."
In a blistering attack on his opponent's decades-long political life, he continued: "Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs, opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars."
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Very odd. They wish to partake of both the having and eating of cake.
Most businesses want someone in a fairly senior role out of the building (physically or electronically) from the day they are told of the dismissal. This is why most senior contracts have gardening leave provisions. There is too much risk of the disgruntled former employee screwing up relationships with key customers or seeking to take key staff with them if they find somewhere else to go.
From your perspective it should give you time to look around on something approaching full wages so I would just grin and bear it. It's their thinking I don't get. I am not surprised that you have good examples of what not to do. The way that they are handling yourself is one of them.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
And how would such a Government ever pass any English only laws?
Very easily. They just have to be ones approved by a majority of MPs for Emglish constituencies.
Which the Tories would have a majority of on those numbers, do you see the issue yet?
It would like Holyrood being abolished, Westminster passing Scottish laws but only if a majority of Scottish MPs back them - with the Westminster Government being Tory and Scottish MPs being SNP. Would the SNP play along with the Tory Government?
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Fuck me. What a total twat we have for a Prime Minister.
Eh? What is twattish?
If someone has a job and doesn't want it . . . . . . and if someone else wants a job but doesn't have it . . .
Then I see a very, very simple solution. 🤷🏻♂️
You will forgive me, I am sure, for reminding you of your initial reaction to the Telegraph article.
For the Headline quoted yes, which was deceptive.
After the article itself got quoted my response has been consistent and still is consistent. That article as far as I'm concerned was a "stinking pile of bovine manure". 💩
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
I am a professional, I have friends still working at this business so I want it to do well. I will of course do what I can. My point is that the CEO wants balls out work 12 hour days if we need to we have to lead from the front - as we have been doing. I have worked the same hours in 3 days as my contract states for 5 days - but having been shit-canned I'm not prepared to do that any more. Especially when the reason I have been shit-canned now 2 months before what we had both agreed was the point we will be able to review and judge the potential for 2021 is to reduce my notice period from 3 months to 1.
Good job my services are in demand, this would truly have wound me up had I been having to out out looking for work rather than work coming to find me...
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Govt subsidised trains are effectively just that. We will be getting more subsidies on trains.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance. i It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
I'm no LibDem, but I agree with all of that. And I do think that it was the broken pledge on tuition fees that really screwed the LibDem image more than anything else.
It wasn't just that, it was taking a side in the first place in 2010 combined with refusing to take one in 2015. Even without tuition fees the Lib Dems would struggle. The idea it was just tuition fees isn't true and doesn't explain why the Tories won nearly half the Lib Dems seats.
Pre-2010 the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Tory candidate" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Labour candidate". Effectively 2015 though the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, you could get a Tory government" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, you could get a Labour government".
Their ambiguity pre-2010 was a strength. 2015 plus it has been a weakness.
That's all due to the distorting nature of FPTP, which forces people to try and work out who to vote for in order to defeat the party they're most afraid of, instead of voting positively for what they want.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Not for the first time I am profoundly glad I've never had a proper job.
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
I am a professional, I have friends still working at this business so I want it to do well. I will of course do what I can. My point is that the CEO wants balls out work 12 hour days if we need to we have to lead from the front - as we have been doing. I have worked the same hours in 3 days as my contract states for 5 days - but having been shit-canned I'm not prepared to do that any more. Especially when the reason I have been shit-canned now 2 months before what we had both agreed was the point we will be able to review and judge the potential for 2021 is to reduce my notice period from 3 months to 1.
Good job my services are in demand, this would truly have wound me up had I been having to out out looking for work rather than work coming to find me...
Yes that is just idiocy by your current management. Do a good, thorough job while you are working out your notice but no more. That is just ridiculous as once you leave the likelihood is that those leads won't be followed up anyway.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Govt subsidised trains are effectively just that. We will be getting more subsidies on trains.
No subsidised trains are about transport - you don't get asked if you board a train if you are going for work or leisure and face different prices accordingly for the same train at the same time.
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance. i It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
I'm no LibDem, but I agree with all of that. And I do think that it was the broken pledge on tuition fees that really screwed the LibDem image more than anything else.
It wasn't just that, it was taking a side in the first place in 2010 combined with refusing to take one in 2015. Even without tuition fees the Lib Dems would struggle. The idea it was just tuition fees isn't true and doesn't explain why the Tories won nearly half the Lib Dems seats.
Pre-2010 the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Tory candidate" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Labour candidate". Effectively 2015 though the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, you could get a Tory government" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, you could get a Labour government".
Their ambiguity pre-2010 was a strength. 2015 plus it has been a weakness.
That's all due to the distorting nature of FPTP, which forces people to try and work out who to vote for in order to defeat the party they're most afraid of, instead of voting positively for what they want.
Considering your vote before you cast it isn't a distortion, its a benefit.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
That is a good point. Most firms have the decency to wait until you are out of the door before replacing you with someone doing exactly the same thing.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Govt subsidised trains are effectively just that. We will be getting more subsidies on trains.
No subsidised trains are about transport - you don't get asked if you board a train if you are going for work or leisure and face different prices accordingly for the same train at the same time.
You do pay more in "peak" times though - i.e. commuters pay more.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Sounds like you can leverage the businesses commercial links and connections for two months for your job search and get paid to do so. And job description is open ended enough that they wont be able to track how much or little graft is put in.
Gardening leave is probably a better solution for the business, but there seem to be advantages (as well as disadvantages) to you from the situation.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Govt subsidised trains are effectively just that. We will be getting more subsidies on trains.
No subsidised trains are about transport - you don't get asked if you board a train if you are going for work or leisure and face different prices accordingly for the same train at the same time.
You do pay more in "peak" times though - i.e. commuters pay more.That's supply and demand.
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
I suspect largely similar numbers of buses and trains are still going to be running. The environmental savings will be slight - all comprising fewer car journies (but they are all going to be electric within 14 years and many of them much sooner than that. (Although without at least one person commuting by car in a family, the need for multiple car ownership in a family also ends.)
There is an opportunity for Government to acknowledge that working from home for many is going to leave people with far more time of their own. How many people actually enjoy the couple of hours each way of getting up/showered/shaved/dressed in work gear/getting to the station/the train or tube journey itself/getting from the station to the office/buying or making a coffee before settling in to the day and then doing it in reverse versus (WFH) of settling in to the day.
I appreciate this change is a complete head-fuck for Government. But surely, somebody like Cummings was made for this task? "We are going to give you the equivalent of 5 weeks a year more holiday - your time, to spend as you want - by not having to commute...." Give people tax breaks over five years to put a shed/shepherd's hut in the garden or an attic conversion to work from. Upgrade their wifi. A cash incentive to get rid of multiple cars. No stamp duty on city dwellings converted from office space. Or on any inner city dwellings for that matter.
Point out how life will be better. Embrace the change.
Covid has given that change a kick up the arse that no Government would otherwise have dared do.
The government that is saying "get back to the office to save city centre jobs" is the same government that is promising 5G and high-speed broadband for all, and presumably not just for streaming Netflix but to support more people working from home or more locally.
Governments, not just this one, bang on and on about more flexible working, remote working, less commuting, less pollution, a better lifestyle balance, and when by necessity we adopt some of those things they are throwing their hands up in horror at one of the most obvious consequences. i.e. That we no longer all need to commute to the office every day.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Sounds like you can leverage the businesses commercial links and connections for two months for your job search and get paid to do so. And job description is open ended enough that they wont be able to track how much or little graft is put in.
Gardening leave is probably a better solution for the business, but there seem to be advantages (as well as disadvantages) to you from the situation.
Yep if you arrive at your new job having had very recent contact with potential or actual clients then that is a plus.
"So tonight," he added, "I ask you a very simple question - how can the Democrat party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?
"In the left's backward view, they do not see America as the most free, just and exceptional nation on earth. Instead, they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins."
In a blistering attack on his opponent's decades-long political life, he continued: "Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs, opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars."
Anybody who sees the US as the most free, just and exceptional nation will happily vote trump, others will vote to try and achieve those objectives by voting for someone else.
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
It's supply and demand but it's not a free market. Consumers in most cases can't realistically choose another means of transport - so they are forced to pay whatever is asked of them.
That's why your opinion on the trains is a niche position. Rail re-nationalisation as a SERVICE rather than as a business is popular amongst the public.
Foxy said "All cities are a bit patchy, but I remember being in NYC in a reasonable mid price hotel, and walking distance to most sights. Fox jr and I thought a visit to the docks to see the USS Intrepid*, just 5 blocks or so away, but in the other direction. It started getting seedy after a couple of blocks, and after two more we were stepping over unconscious hobos. We caught a taxi back. Go the wrong way in America and you are in a different city."
Young and naive I walked down Chicago's "Skid Row" in the fifties..Blokes lying around everywhere. Absolutely sad. I doubt they had the wherewithal to do me any harm, if so minded. I gather Skid Row has been gentrified since then. That often happens in US cities.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
Thanks for that. As I have been there less than 2 years I have less rights than I would like. However I agree with the cake and eat it bit. Legally they don't need a reason to lay me off. However they have followed a process where they have declared my role redundant. Despite the commercial review which will decide if the business wants to restructure me out not taking place until the end of October.
In his own words the CEO is clear that we do not yet know the shape of 2021 and cannot make the call yet about Commercial resource needed. But to reduce the costs to the business he has triggered redundancy now so that if we get to the end of October and they want to remove the role it will cost less as I have (a) already served 2 months notice and (b) they have used the Arcadia strategem to negate my contract and use Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme monies to not pay my contracted pay despite ministers being explicit that this is now what the scheme is to be used for.
I am certainly going to argue the toss. But short of spending money on solicitors to try and defend my position I don't think I will get anywhere. Hence my ambivalence towards doing anything other that strict delivery against my part of a contract they are refusing to honour.
Trump is not entirely wrong about the Chinese threat either and difficult times will arise in the Pacific along with protection of IP etc.
I read this a lot here and I'm bemused. Trump was wrong on China. He spent a couple of years sucking up to Xi so badly. It was craven and it made him look weak. China may but have dared to take its actions on Hong Kong otherwise.
I don't know why he changed tack to start a trade war. Was it after the failure of the North Korea summit?
It doesn't matter. Trump deserves no credit on China. He was even more of a kiss arse than Osborne and Cameron.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
First step: Identify in a few words
1) What is the problem you are trying to solve
2) Within the constraints of reality, what would count as a solution
3) What is your desired outcome.
At which point you probably know whether you need: An employment lawyer, a spanner and a tube of superglue to chuck in the works, or to take the best deal you can achieve yourself.
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
Thanks for that. As I have been there less than 2 years I have less rights than I would like. However I agree with the cake and eat it bit. Legally they don't need a reason to lay me off. However they have followed a process where they have declared my role redundant. Despite the commercial review which will decide if the business wants to restructure me out not taking place until the end of October.
In his own words the CEO is clear that we do not yet know the shape of 2021 and cannot make the call yet about Commercial resource needed. But to reduce the costs to the business he has triggered redundancy now so that if we get to the end of October and they want to remove the role it will cost less as I have (a) already served 2 months notice and (b) they have used the Arcadia strategem to negate my contract and use Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme monies to not pay my contracted pay despite ministers being explicit that this is now what the scheme is to be used for.
I am certainly going to argue the toss. But short of spending money on solicitors to try and defend my position I don't think I will get anywhere. Hence my ambivalence towards doing anything other that strict delivery against my part of a contract they are refusing to honour.
If you have been there less than 2 years you are probably right that you wont get anywhere, very few rights about dismissal. I would think you are entitled to the pay that is in your contract unless you have waived it though regardless of CJRS?
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
Trouble is, voters don't believe your assertions of a "hell of a lot better". Hence your Westminster seats keep going down down, deeper and down. But hey, I'm happy for you to continue with that status quo....
I don't know why you say "you". I have never in my life been a LibDem supporter nor voter. Clearly, lots of voters disagree with me about lots of things, but I think there is a case for the LibDems to argue that a coalition government is actually better, but I'm not sure if they are making that argument. And there might be a lot more voters than you think (which seems to be none judging by "everybody knows it") who do actually agree that the 2010-15 coalition government was much better than what followed. I personally know several.
What is the point of a small centre party that doesnt consistently make the case for coalition?
Exactly. They will never be forgiven for actually getting into government.*
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
It's a little harder to sell and theyve given up trying.
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
It's supply and demand but it's not a free market. Consumers in most cases can't realistically choose another means of transport - so they are forced to pay whatever is asked of them.
That's why your opinion on the trains is a niche position. Rail re-nationalisation as a SERVICE rather than as a business is popular amongst the public.
There are two things:
1) Who should pay for the use of public transport? We tend to ask more of customers in this country, which is why our fares look high compared with Paris, for example.
2) Should we outsource the provision of the service?
I don't know what people really think about 2, but if they think taking the service provision in house means that fares will be cheaper - and I think that's what people are really after - then they are wrong.
What people really need to be asked is, how much of the cost should be met by the user? That figure varied enormously across the country pre-COVID. In some places commuters were paying more than 100% of the costs.
But in a post-COVID world, every line is like rural Wales. Fares would have to rise an enormous amount to reduce the burden on the tax payer. Are tax payers happy for the government to hand over c.£10 billion a year to the industry (whether it has private operators or not) to run mostly empty trains all day?
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
It's supply and demand but it's not a free market. Consumers in most cases can't realistically choose another means of transport - so they are forced to pay whatever is asked of them.
That's why your opinion on the trains is a niche position. Rail re-nationalisation as a SERVICE rather than as a business is popular amongst the public.
Consumers absolutely can choose alternative means of transportation. Cars, pedal bikes, e-bikes, motorbikes, taxis . . . there are plenty of alternatives.
Just heard the betfair guy on the radio saying there was a massive surge in action overnight powering Trump to a 49% chance. A million quid in the last 24 hours.
Can I ask for perspectives on my situation with work? I've been made redundant from my Commercial Manager role - in essence the business is downsizing and they can't afford me. We haven't been able to reach an agreement about their use of the Arcadia stratagem to underpay my notice by using the furlough scheme. A proportion of my role has been passed to overworked / under-qualified colleagues to bollocks up. I and they and most of us are working 3 day weeks (and furloughed the rest) which in my case meant I just had a 6 day weekend and thus trying to progress anything is (as my similarly shit-canned Operations Manager colleague put it) like wading through Glue.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
This happens all the time in financial services. It comes down to you and your approach to your work. The contract says you have a notice period. If they choose to enforce this then it is up to you to behave in as professional a manner as possible.
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
Indeed. However due to shit wording it refers to legal statutory only. Which for me is 1 week of 13 weeks contractual notice. Its explicit in government guidance and ministerial statements that people like me should get full pay. But there is a nice grey area with regards to wording that Phillip Green is exploiting and my company is also following. A very indignant HR Manager hiding behind one sentence in the new law despite that sentence being directly contradicted by the statements published about it.
In all honesty I don't think the ministers understand employment law or what they have changed. They claim that people working notice will get full pay. Referring to a new law that leaves a hole for people who have "enhanced notice" i.e. more than statutory. The spirit of the law is clear. The letter of the law less clear.
I await the union getting the Arcadia action ruled illegal. I'm going to put my protest in writing, point to the error they are making and promise I will pursue them for the underpayment once its made clear they have erred.
Sounds very much to me as though your boss is trying to have his cake and eat it and what he is doing is neither ethical nor legal. In fact and I am certainly no lawyer here it doesn't sound to me like you are being made redundant at all. Redundant is when the role goes away. The role appears to be still there they are just handing it to someone else.
Thanks for that. As I have been there less than 2 years I have less rights than I would like. However I agree with the cake and eat it bit. Legally they don't need a reason to lay me off. However they have followed a process where they have declared my role redundant. Despite the commercial review which will decide if the business wants to restructure me out not taking place until the end of October.
In his own words the CEO is clear that we do not yet know the shape of 2021 and cannot make the call yet about Commercial resource needed. But to reduce the costs to the business he has triggered redundancy now so that if we get to the end of October and they want to remove the role it will cost less as I have (a) already served 2 months notice and (b) they have used the Arcadia strategem to negate my contract and use Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme monies to not pay my contracted pay despite ministers being explicit that this is now what the scheme is to be used for.
I am certainly going to argue the toss. But short of spending money on solicitors to try and defend my position I don't think I will get anywhere. Hence my ambivalence towards doing anything other that strict delivery against my part of a contract they are refusing to honour.
Might also be worth trying a pm to DougSeal for some informal advice I believe he is an employment lawyer
The Liberal Democrats are a complete irrelevance but before OGH bans mention of them altogether as a waste of precious bits and bytes on pb's expensive new server, we can perhaps offer the new leader some advice.
The LibDems are no longer our third party and thus almost guaranteed an invitation to political discussion shows. The SNP has three times as many MPs; the DUP almost as many.
Ed Davey needs to emulate chat show Charlie to get those television invitations pouring in. Luckily Davey scored a first in PPE at Oxford, in the same cohort as David Cameron. Davey needs to rack his brain for anecdotes about Boris, Gove and all the other Tory big cheeses he was at Oxford with. And stories from his time in government that make him seem a more serious player than Keir Starmer.
Instead what we got on the day he was elected was a promise to listen, to travel up and down the country listening to people. Not unlike Rory Stewart, and a fat lot of good it did him. I am your leader, let me follow you!
Were there any ideas emanting from either candidate in their election campaign? If so, they didn't make it to the outside world....
If I were a senior LibDem, I'd be giving up on Westminster. For at least the next ten years. Meantime, become a nationally important party of local government. It's what they are good at. Nobody believes they will be a governing party in any other context. So become very, very good at local governance.
It would get them over the issue of the height of their ambition being as a junior partner in a coalition. Because that went so well last time. And everybody knows it - hence their continued slide in seats. But they can still make a real improvement at a local level - especially if that is their sole focus.
The Libdems may still be recovering from the political damage that being part of the 2010-15 coalition government did, but that coalition government was a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority govt that followed, a hell of a lot better than the conservative govt propped up the DUP that followed that, and a hell of a lot better than the conservative majority government that followed that.
I would also argue that if Labour had failed to get a majority in 1997, 2001, or 2005, a Labour-LibDem coalition government would have been much better than the Labour majority governments we actually had.
I voted for Ed Davey because he was a Coalition minister. Its been used as an attack - he needs to pivot it into a positive and that was a key campaign theme. So much of the good in the coalition was LibDem initiatives and policies. So much of the bad was Tory initiatives and policies. Own the good, disown the bad. The Tories are excellent at this, Davey hopefully learned some tricks.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
It's all about tuition fees. Has Davey said anything about them? Would a red line in any future coalition or C&S negotiations be to scrap them?
Isn't that easy though since Labour still supports - I think - scrapping them anyway.
The red line should be PR.
Well that's good news in terms of any deal with Labour (let's face it, Labour and Lib Dems are no longer fighting each other).
But how about a result like:
Con - 308 Lab - 249 SNP - 50 LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland) DUP - 8 SF - 7 PC - 4 SDLP - 2 Alliance - 1 Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
Unless the Tories backed EEA the LDs would obviously go with Starmer Labour and the LDs
Not everything in 2024 is going to be about Brexit ffs.
He is obsessed with it.
If we're still talking about Brexit as the main issue, Johnson has failed to deliver it and so why would voters trust him again?
Johnson has already delivered it but who wins in 2024 will almost certainly depend on whether Brexit is a success under the Tories, whether on WTO terms or with a FTA with the EU and the economy is still growing.
If not then voters will look for a softer Brexit with Labour and the LDs and SNP
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
It's supply and demand but it's not a free market. Consumers in most cases can't realistically choose another means of transport - so they are forced to pay whatever is asked of them.
That's why your opinion on the trains is a niche position. Rail re-nationalisation as a SERVICE rather than as a business is popular amongst the public.
Consumers absolutely can choose alternative means of transportation. Cars, pedal bikes, e-bikes, motorbikes, taxis . . . there are plenty of alternatives.
Are you a commuter?
The rail service absolutely is a monopoly, on weight of numbers alone. Working from home has liberated us, finally.
Want us to go back to trains? try providing a decent service.
Comments
We'd all like to think that Ameria isn't racist and misogynist, but ignoring evidence that it is - well, that's inviting a loss....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53943758
I'm WFH because most people in my company don't want to use public transport (including me) and our company has seen no reductions in productivity during this period, so there is no rush to get back.
We can't get back to 100% capacity with social distancing guidelines so this seems entirely contradictory to me.
And wearing a mask for 8 hours a day? 2.5 hours watching Tenet was awful enough
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
You can't run and hide from your actions. Own them. Every time I fuck something up professionally I own it - what gets remembered is the professional and responsible way I handled it as opposed to the fuck up itself. Davey can do the same - Clegg fucked up tuition fees. Made the wrong choice, didn't tell us until afterwards, we shouldn't have done it, we will fix it.
My hope is that Biden is a smart delegator and wise to his own limitations, something the current incumbent most decidedly is not!
I don't know if there's a Services between Milton Keynes and Northampton to take the place of Watford Gap?
I think one of the worst examples of regulation I have seen in recent times was that striking off that was ultimately overturned of the junior doctor who had been left trying to cope when her consultant had sodded off. No one who understood the role of a junior doctor or the resources (not) available would have made that mistake.
I fear that once again Covid is going to make this more difficult however.
The red line should be PR.
Pre-2010 the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Tory candidate" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, so you don't get the Labour candidate".
Effectively 2015 though the Lib Dems told left/centre-left voters "vote for us, you could get a Tory government" and told right/centre-right voters "vote for us, you could get a Labour government".
Their ambiguity pre-2010 was a strength. 2015 plus it has been a weakness.
*Note: AS THE SMALLER PARTY WHERE COMPROMISES ARE REQUIRED YES EVEN FOR TOTEMIC POLICIES.
If outsourcing takes place it will be because the company thinks the job can be done to the same quality at cheaper cost and WFH makes little difference
The US response to Covid has been a disaster and the economic consequences of that will dominate the early part of his term.
The relationships with allies, so damaged under Trump, will need to be rebuilt. Trump is not entirely wrong about the Chinese threat either and difficult times will arise in the Pacific along with protection of IP etc.
The leadership role of international institutions has been largely abandoned by Trump: does the US want it back?
So little has been done about crumbling infrastructure.
It's not as if the next President will have a quiet time, quite the opposite.
But how about a result like:
Con - 308
Lab - 249
SNP - 50
LD - 20 (of which four are in Scotland)
DUP - 8
SF - 7
PC - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 1
Speaker - 1
What would the Lib Dems do in such a scenario? Do they do a deal with Labour and the SNP? Could they work with the Tories?
There is an opportunity for Government to acknowledge that working from home for many is going to leave people with far more time of their own. How many people actually enjoy the couple of hours each way of getting up/showered/shaved/dressed in work gear/getting to the station/the train or tube journey itself/getting from the station to the office/buying or making a coffee before settling in to the day and then doing it in reverse versus (WFH) of settling in to the day.
I appreciate this change is a complete head-fuck for Government. But surely, somebody like Cummings was made for this task? "We are going to give you the equivalent of 5 weeks a year more holiday - your time, to spend as you want - by not having to commute...." Give people tax breaks over five years to put a shed/shepherd's hut in the garden or an attic conversion to work from. Upgrade their wifi. A cash incentive to get rid of multiple cars. No stamp duty on city dwellings converted from office space. Or on any inner city dwellings for that matter.
Point out how life will be better. Embrace the change.
Covid has given that change a kick up the arse that no Government would otherwise have dared do.
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish LIB Dems enacted policies their voters approved of and the UK wide Lib Dems did not?
It is an outrageous suggestion I know but it could be something to do with that.
The business wants me relentlessly seeking commercial opportunities - apparently its Critical. Yet apparently the way to do so is emasculate me, fire me, under pay me and ensure that progress is painfully and abjectly slow. My question then is this - why am I still here? The business wanting to keep me on the books through to the end of the Furlough scheme I can understand. But leaving me in a role they have already discarded? I'm going to hand projects and major customer relationships over to my number two who is perfectly capable - beyond that I am baffled what the game is.
I think the boss wants my experience and ideas and expertise. Having already fired me. He proposed that having fired me I then had 2 months to see what new business we could win and if enough then un-fire me. When he gets back off holiday (yes, I have had a "consultation" process leading to redundancy which he trigged the afternoon he went on holiday) I need to discuss with him their dodgy practices with regards to pay and effective breach of contract. I am Not Happy. Yet he envisages that I will graft away fully committed.
This job has filled in general management experience I was short. And some great examples of what not to do. So I appreciate that. But I am baffled as to what they think I am going to be doing.
Of course in this scenario I assume Johnson would have to resign for that to happen, which he might well not until he'd lost a vote.
Would be an interesting Parliament though, because we could have it reform without an election which even last time around wasn't really possible
But what would be confusing to me is if Johnson refused to resign, I think he would have the first chance to get a QS through but even losing this doesn't mean he resigns does it? How would he go?
If we're still talking about Brexit as the main issue, Johnson has failed to deliver it and so why would voters trust him again?
Of course (again, cf financial services) if they are asking you to try to win new business from firms who you will shortly be approaching from your new job then, frankly, they don't deserve to have an operating license because I can imagine how your conversations will go...
Davey is perhaps not the most inspiring of politicians, but there’s a market for honest competence, currently ill supplied (on both counts).
If he wants credit for honesty, he needs to address the tuition fee history
The massive cost loading of all these new forms and checks and customs agents and the massive costs of the delays in processing all of this and the impact on the movement and thus availability of vehicles can't be borne by the retailer. Or the manufacturer. The "good mark up" isn't there mate. No, it will be borne by the consumer. Whose lack of money in our high cost of living society has already driven out all the bunce in costings. Everything will cost more. Some things a lot more. With far worse availability.
The market is being manipulated in Trump's favour.
"So tonight," he added, "I ask you a very simple question - how can the Democrat party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?
"In the left's backward view, they do not see America as the most free, just and exceptional nation on earth. Instead, they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins."
In a blistering attack on his opponent's decades-long political life, he continued: "Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs, opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53942667
Seems a nice bloke
Most businesses want someone in a fairly senior role out of the building (physically or electronically) from the day they are told of the dismissal. This is why most senior contracts have gardening leave provisions. There is too much risk of the disgruntled former employee screwing up relationships with key customers or seeking to take key staff with them if they find somewhere else to go.
From your perspective it should give you time to look around on something approaching full wages so I would just grin and bear it. It's their thinking I don't get. I am not surprised that you have good examples of what not to do. The way that they are handling yourself is one of them.
Much better rhetoric
It would like Holyrood being abolished, Westminster passing Scottish laws but only if a majority of Scottish MPs back them - with the Westminster Government being Tory and Scottish MPs being SNP. Would the SNP play along with the Tory Government?
Its the same as that but reversed.
a) I have backed Trump at all prices
b) my stakes were far short of £300k
After the article itself got quoted my response has been consistent and still is consistent. That article as far as I'm concerned was a "stinking pile of bovine manure". 💩
If it turns out to be accurate I will eat my hat.
Good job my services are in demand, this would truly have wound me up had I been having to out out looking for work rather than work coming to find me...
https://twitter.com/nbcchicago/status/1299066680069558273
This place seems good however for some general legal takes on it
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/
Aaron is right for once
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Gardening leave is probably a better solution for the business, but there seem to be advantages (as well as disadvantages) to you from the situation.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
If you're going to a theatre performance that requires you to travel at peak time you pay more too.
Governments, not just this one, bang on and on about more flexible working, remote working, less commuting, less pollution, a better lifestyle balance, and when by necessity we adopt some of those things they are throwing their hands up in horror at one of the most obvious consequences. i.e. That we no longer all need to commute to the office every day.
That's why your opinion on the trains is a niche position. Rail re-nationalisation as a SERVICE rather than as a business is popular amongst the public.
"All cities are a bit patchy, but I remember being in NYC in a reasonable mid price hotel, and walking distance to most sights. Fox jr and I thought a visit to the docks to see the USS Intrepid*, just 5 blocks or so away, but in the other direction. It started getting seedy after a couple of blocks, and after two more we were stepping over unconscious hobos. We caught a taxi back. Go the wrong way in America and you are in a different city."
Young and naive I walked down Chicago's "Skid Row" in the fifties..Blokes lying around everywhere. Absolutely sad. I doubt they had the wherewithal to do me any harm, if so minded. I gather Skid Row has been gentrified since then. That often happens in US cities.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-to-ensure-furloughed-employees-receive-full-redundancy-payments
In his own words the CEO is clear that we do not yet know the shape of 2021 and cannot make the call yet about Commercial resource needed. But to reduce the costs to the business he has triggered redundancy now so that if we get to the end of October and they want to remove the role it will cost less as I have (a) already served 2 months notice and (b) they have used the Arcadia strategem to negate my contract and use Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme monies to not pay my contracted pay despite ministers being explicit that this is now what the scheme is to be used for.
I am certainly going to argue the toss. But short of spending money on solicitors to try and defend my position I don't think I will get anywhere. Hence my ambivalence towards doing anything other that strict delivery against my part of a contract they are refusing to honour.
I don't know why he changed tack to start a trade war. Was it after the failure of the North Korea summit?
It doesn't matter. Trump deserves no credit on China. He was even more of a kiss arse than Osborne and Cameron.
1) What is the problem you are trying to solve
2) Within the constraints of reality, what would count as a solution
3) What is your desired outcome.
At which point you probably know whether you need: An employment lawyer, a spanner and a tube of superglue to chuck in the works, or to take the best deal you can achieve yourself.
1) Who should pay for the use of public transport? We tend to ask more of customers in this country, which is why our fares look high compared with Paris, for example.
2) Should we outsource the provision of the service?
I don't know what people really think about 2, but if they think taking the service provision in house means that fares will be cheaper - and I think that's what people are really after - then they are wrong.
What people really need to be asked is, how much of the cost should be met by the user? That figure varied enormously across the country pre-COVID. In some places commuters were paying more than 100% of the costs.
But in a post-COVID world, every line is like rural Wales. Fares would have to rise an enormous amount to reduce the burden on the tax payer. Are tax payers happy for the government to hand over c.£10 billion a year to the industry (whether it has private operators or not) to run mostly empty trains all day?
In all honesty I don't think the ministers understand employment law or what they have changed. They claim that people working notice will get full pay. Referring to a new law that leaves a hole for people who have "enhanced notice" i.e. more than statutory. The spirit of the law is clear. The letter of the law less clear.
I await the union getting the Arcadia action ruled illegal. I'm going to put my protest in writing, point to the error they are making and promise I will pursue them for the underpayment once its made clear they have erred.
If not then voters will look for a softer Brexit with Labour and the LDs and SNP
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
The rail service absolutely is a monopoly, on weight of numbers alone. Working from home has liberated us, finally.
Want us to go back to trains? try providing a decent service.