At today’s #CPTPP Commission, hosted by @nishy03, we decided to commence an accession process with the United Kingdom. The economic and strategic heft of the #CPTPP will be strengthened through the accession of high quality, high ambition economies.
No, it is giving away (some of) the control we recently took back. That is the problem with any of these agreements, including our membership of the EU: they include clauses which limit our future choices. The pro-EU argument on this revolved around "pooling" sovereignty but that was, probably rightly, seen as nonsense.
CPTPP is much more akin to the EEC we joined - and would have stayed in.
If the CPTPP has aspirations to become a nation state, with flags and anthems and armies, you may have a point. Until them, very happy to move to such a trade grouping and away from the nascent United States of Europe.
A problem that the pro-EU side failed to grapple with was handling (and admitting) the change from the EEC to the EU.
Up to the 80s, the EEC was an economic project - yes, there was some stuff about ever closer union etc, but that was just some fine language.
After 1989, the change was dramatic. The mistake was claiming that nothing had changed, since this was obviously untrue.
And yet after years of semi-detachment from the political projects and our then departure from the EU, we have chosen to shun the economic advantages of the single market we helped set up, run and write the rules of. The EEA - and EFTA - are still there and of far more benefit to us than becoming an observer at CPTPP.
That kind of shit has been a on-going problem. BT had a thing for setting your router to provide public Wifi by default... not sure they aren't still doing that. Any customers of BT here?
I'm a customer, perfectly satisfied and not bothered by that. The near-ubiquity of accessible BT routers is a big factor why I use them. If download rate was an issue I might be concerned, but it's fine.
It's the lack of informed consent that is an issue,.
I would opt out if my house were less isolated - not on bandwidth issues but because I'd hate to have to prove to the plod that it was a random passer by, not me, downloading extreme pornography over my broadband
Yup, IIRC the latest legal advice was that you could be liable. The law was setup so that the I-don't-secure-my-wifi excuse wouldn't work - and since you have the option to turn off the BT public access, this meant you are responsible for it!
You don't actually own the BT public access service, surely?
Obviously the 'open up your network to the world and blame anything that happens on someone else' excuse is wearing a bit thin, but this is a bit different.
It’s quite possible you’d be relying on BT’s recordkeeping if it got to court though.
Technically, I’d have assumed that the home connection and the public connection in the router have different IP addresses, but assumptions can be dangerous!
Presumably OFCOM approved the router config for that type of scenario, before deploying them?
I would assume that you would get screwed, and after a long battle, having lost your job, house (maybe even access to your children).... might or might not be vindicated.
Yes, it’s potentially very dangerous, and I’d avoid it at all costs.
What Amazon are doing on the other hand, and where this conversation started, is rediculously bonkers. If I have my Amazon device on my own wifi router, it appears that it will share my wifi login with the Amazon device in the house next door. Which, if my connection is metered 4G, and next door’s device is a 4k camera, could cause me to receive a massive bill.
Everyone needs to start turning on MAC whitelisting in their routers - which isn’t a problem for me, because I do that anyway. But I’m an IT security guy, and 99.99% of other people aren’t.
And when you add in all the internet connected crap with no security that everyone else is adding to their networks - their fuckups become your fuckups....
Now I feel really old as I remember nagging my Dad to buy a TV that could get BBC2 when it came out (and the same for colour TV)
Buy a TV?
We rented our first colour TV
I have to keep adjusting my age profile of people. You have just gone up a couple of decades Scott. And I mean that as a compliment.
Ditto to you; non bbc2 enabled TVs is a seriously cool concept.
Yep they weren't. Can't remember why. There was something about the number of 'lines' on you TV I think (or did that have something to do with colour?). I'm just making stuff up now. 405 and 600 and something rings bells. The other thing of course is they were preprogrammed with a button for each (of the 2) stations.
Now waiting to be told I'm talking twaddle.
How old did you think I am?
My father wouldn't have a TV for ages. Said it would distracted from his children's education, although my study was carried out in another room. However I left home in September 1958 and when I came back at Christmas there was one installed in the living room. My sister, who did better than me academically, didn't leave home until a year later.
A friend was the same with his infant son. It lasted till the child's first teacher mentioned the boy seemed behind on the alphabet which the rest of the class had picked up from Sesame Street.
My wife and I didn't have a TV for the first few months of our marriage in 1962, but when our first child was on the way we got one. And when our second was on the way we got a colour one; one of the first colour TV's the local dealer, next door to my pharmacy, supplied.
TV as prophylactic? Not tonight darling, Dr Kildare is on?
At today’s #CPTPP Commission, hosted by @nishy03, we decided to commence an accession process with the United Kingdom. The economic and strategic heft of the #CPTPP will be strengthened through the accession of high quality, high ambition economies.
No, it is giving away (some of) the control we recently took back. That is the problem with any of these agreements, including our membership of the EU: they include clauses which limit our future choices. The pro-EU argument on this revolved around "pooling" sovereignty but that was, probably rightly, seen as nonsense.
CPTPP is much more akin to the EEC we joined - and would have stayed in.
If the CPTPP has aspirations to become a nation state, with flags and anthems and armies, you may have a point. Until them, very happy to move to such a trade grouping and away from the nascent United States of Europe.
A problem that the pro-EU side failed to grapple with was handling (and admitting) the change from the EEC to the EU.
Up to the 80s, the EEC was an economic project - yes, there was some stuff about ever closer union etc, but that was just some fine language.
After 1989, the change was dramatic. The mistake was claiming that nothing had changed, since this was obviously untrue.
And yet after years of semi-detachment from the political projects and our then departure from the EU, we have chosen to shun the economic advantages of the single market we helped set up, run and write the rules of. The EEA - and EFTA - are still there and of far more benefit to us than becoming an observer at CPTPP.
Yes.
The problem was that the response to the growing political dimension was to deny it existed. Then to claim it was always there, since 195X.....
That kind of shit has been a on-going problem. BT had a thing for setting your router to provide public Wifi by default... not sure they aren't still doing that. Any customers of BT here?
I'm a customer, perfectly satisfied and not bothered by that. The near-ubiquity of accessible BT routers is a big factor why I use them. If download rate was an issue I might be concerned, but it's fine.
It's the lack of informed consent that is an issue,.
I would opt out if my house were less isolated - not on bandwidth issues but because I'd hate to have to prove to the plod that it was a random passer by, not me, downloading extreme pornography over my broadband
Yup, IIRC the latest legal advice was that you could be liable. The law was setup so that the I-don't-secure-my-wifi excuse wouldn't work - and since you have the option to turn off the BT public access, this meant you are responsible for it!
You don't actually own the BT public access service, surely?
Obviously the 'open up your network to the world and blame anything that happens on someone else' excuse is wearing a bit thin, but this is a bit different.
It’s quite possible you’d be relying on BT’s recordkeeping if it got to court though.
Technically, I’d have assumed that the home connection and the public connection in the router have different IP addresses, but assumptions can be dangerous!
Presumably OFCOM approved the router config for that type of scenario, before deploying them?
I would assume that you would get screwed, and after a long battle, having lost your job, house (maybe even access to your children).... might or might not be vindicated.
Yes, it’s potentially very dangerous, and I’d avoid it at all costs.
What Amazon are doing on the other hand, and where this conversation started, is rediculously bonkers. If I have my Amazon device on my own wifi router, it appears that it will share my wifi login with the Amazon device in the house next door. Which, if my connection is metered 4G, and next door’s device is a 4k camera, could cause me to receive a massive bill.
Everyone needs to start turning on MAC whitelisting in their routers - which isn’t a problem for me, because I do that anyway. But I’m an IT security guy, and 99.99% of other people aren’t.
And when you add in all the internet connected crap with no security that everyone else is adding to their networks - their fuckups become your fuckups....
I’m at an IT security Conference today, hence the pub lunch. I’ve spent the morning listening to speakers talking about IoT vulnerabilities among other things. It’s genuinely scary. Not quite as scary as the targeted attacks on infrastructure, protecting against which is my day job right now, but scary what it could become in terms of massive botnets in the future.
That kind of shit has been a on-going problem. BT had a thing for setting your router to provide public Wifi by default... not sure they aren't still doing that. Any customers of BT here?
I'm a customer, perfectly satisfied and not bothered by that. The near-ubiquity of accessible BT routers is a big factor why I use them. If download rate was an issue I might be concerned, but it's fine.
It's the lack of informed consent that is an issue,.
I would opt out if my house were less isolated - not on bandwidth issues but because I'd hate to have to prove to the plod that it was a random passer by, not me, downloading extreme pornography over my broadband
Yup, IIRC the latest legal advice was that you could be liable. The law was setup so that the I-don't-secure-my-wifi excuse wouldn't work - and since you have the option to turn off the BT public access, this meant you are responsible for it!
You don't actually own the BT public access service, surely?
Obviously the 'open up your network to the world and blame anything that happens on someone else' excuse is wearing a bit thin, but this is a bit different.
It’s quite possible you’d be relying on BT’s recordkeeping if it got to court though.
Technically, I’d have assumed that the home connection and the public connection in the router have different IP addresses, but assumptions can be dangerous!
Presumably OFCOM approved the router config for that type of scenario, before deploying them?
I would assume that you would get screwed, and after a long battle, having lost your job, house (maybe even access to your children).... might or might not be vindicated.
Not having a bt router I can't check to confirm but I would suspect the ip address is the same but the router hives it off to a different subnet.....sadly when investigating the police will only see the ip address and come after you.
That kind of shit has been a on-going problem. BT had a thing for setting your router to provide public Wifi by default... not sure they aren't still doing that. Any customers of BT here?
I'm a customer, perfectly satisfied and not bothered by that. The near-ubiquity of accessible BT routers is a big factor why I use them. If download rate was an issue I might be concerned, but it's fine.
It's the lack of informed consent that is an issue,.
I would opt out if my house were less isolated - not on bandwidth issues but because I'd hate to have to prove to the plod that it was a random passer by, not me, downloading extreme pornography over my broadband
Yup, IIRC the latest legal advice was that you could be liable. The law was setup so that the I-don't-secure-my-wifi excuse wouldn't work - and since you have the option to turn off the BT public access, this meant you are responsible for it!
You don't actually own the BT public access service, surely?
Obviously the 'open up your network to the world and blame anything that happens on someone else' excuse is wearing a bit thin, but this is a bit different.
It’s quite possible you’d be relying on BT’s recordkeeping if it got to court though.
Technically, I’d have assumed that the home connection and the public connection in the router have different IP addresses, but assumptions can be dangerous!
Presumably OFCOM approved the router config for that type of scenario, before deploying them?
I would assume that you would get screwed, and after a long battle, having lost your job, house (maybe even access to your children).... might or might not be vindicated.
Yes, it’s potentially very dangerous, and I’d avoid it at all costs.
What Amazon are doing on the other hand, and where this conversation started, is rediculously bonkers. If I have my Amazon device on my own wifi router, it appears that it will share my wifi login with the Amazon device in the house next door. Which, if my connection is metered 4G, and next door’s device is a 4k camera, could cause me to receive a massive bill.
Everyone needs to start turning on MAC whitelisting in their routers - which isn’t a problem for me, because I do that anyway. But I’m an IT security guy, and 99.99% of other people aren’t.
And when you add in all the internet connected crap with no security that everyone else is adding to their networks - their fuckups become your fuckups....
I’m at an IT security Conference today, hence the pub lunch. I’ve spent the morning listening to speakers talking about IoT vulnerabilities among other things. It’s genuinely scary.
And you haven't welded yourself inside a TEMPEST cage, yet?
EG in pubs: bar service will be allowed and no social restrictions BUT track and trace will remain, no standing or seating by the bar, masks required when ordering at the bar and when moving around the pub.
Similar rules in restaurants, indoor places like cinemas etc.
Prudent sensible provisions.
Is that what you're expecting, or wanting, or have seen somewhere?
Its not good enough. Seating at the bar is part of a pub. Masks are not.
Its time to get back to normal. If someone unvaccinated doesn't want to go to a pub operating like normal, they have a simple choice: don't go there!
I was at a pub in the Peak District at the weekend, the tables were well spread out and ordering by app. It all worked neatly, but the Test and Trace App was being ignored. I think no one is using if anymore.
I think ordering by app and table service will be the norm in pubs for while. It works and people like it.
It might be the norm for some not very busy pubs with lots of space.
Come down South and I'll show you a proper boozer, which is so busy that you queue for 5 minutes to get a pint. If you're lucky....
The talk at my book group yesterday was how local pubs are hiking up their prices to offset losses. One is charging £7 a pint.
Bloody hell! Where is that? If they did that near me there would be a pitchfork wielding mob. My local was charging £5:20 for two pints of bitter last week.
I’m currently sat in a pub having lunch. The cost of the pint - £9.50 at today’s exchange rate. In a couple of hours it will be “happy hour”, when the pint will only be £6.25.
(I console myself with the fact I’m not paying 40% in income tax).
Looking forward to going back to see my family in Bangkok and paying about £1.50......
Before the pandemic I was doing some work with a company in Manila, and spent the night in Bangkok after there was a volcano that went off in the Philippines. Both wonderful countries, and with very cheap beer - even in the airport!
(Just checked the date of the volcano eruption, Jan 12th 2020. That was the last time I was on a plane, 17 months ago!)
I know a chap who spent much of his life in export sales who found Bangkok threatening. And preferred one of the standard, American-owned hotels to the Oriental.
At today’s #CPTPP Commission, hosted by @nishy03, we decided to commence an accession process with the United Kingdom. The economic and strategic heft of the #CPTPP will be strengthened through the accession of high quality, high ambition economies.
No, it is giving away (some of) the control we recently took back. That is the problem with any of these agreements, including our membership of the EU: they include clauses which limit our future choices. The pro-EU argument on this revolved around "pooling" sovereignty but that was, probably rightly, seen as nonsense.
CPTPP is much more akin to the EEC we joined - and would have stayed in.
If the CPTPP has aspirations to become a nation state, with flags and anthems and armies, you may have a point. Until them, very happy to move to such a trade grouping and away from the nascent United States of Europe.
A problem that the pro-EU side failed to grapple with was handling (and admitting) the change from the EEC to the EU.
Up to the 80s, the EEC was an economic project - yes, there was some stuff about ever closer union etc, but that was just some fine language.
After 1989, the change was dramatic. The mistake was claiming that nothing had changed, since this was obviously untrue.
And yet after years of semi-detachment from the political projects and our then departure from the EU, we have chosen to shun the economic advantages of the single market we helped set up, run and write the rules of. The EEA - and EFTA - are still there and of far more benefit to us than becoming an observer at CPTPP.
Yes.
The problem was that the response to the growing political dimension was to deny it existed. Then to claim it was always there, since 195X.....
The EU superstate project was - and is - increasingly detached from what would be sane for the UK to agree to. Hence our standoff from joining the Euro or Schengen which despite our prominence would inevitably push us to the periphery of the "two speed Europe".
So, departing from the superstate to revert to status quo ante - a free trade area - was the logical path. Until fuck business came along and now we're stuck in a trade cold war and harming ourselves whilst simultaneously indulging in flag twattery trying to make out that everything is awesome and we are able to do what we want and not follow any rules at all.
Mr. Cockney, I raised an eyebrow at the juxtaposition of BBC red button headlines last night.
"0 deaths" was followed by "Start of the third wave in Scotland".
Indeed.
The media have a lot to answer for. Sky News have spent the last couple of months breathlessly and endlessly trumpeting every scare mongering scientist they can drag in front of camera. Often it's the same people again and again and again which then appears on the website under 'BREAKING NEWS'.
And it's all very well for the Daily Mail to carry the Zero banner but they too have been up and down like a whore's drawers (Rowan Atkinson): one minute demonstrating for our freedom, the next telling us that cases are rising sharply. They even declared last week that deaths had risen by an alarming 16%. The raw data behind that was an increase from 6 deaths to 7 deaths. Stop for a moment and consider the utter absurdity of that.
There's only one statistic which matters: vaccinations. These brilliant vaccines work. We need to trust them and get everybody jabbed asap.
Then back to life, back to big Government butting out of our lives and putting the media back in their box.
Depending on which figures you look at, either two or four people who had been double jabbed have died from this new variant. That’s out of a very substantial number of cases.
Therefore either this new variant is not especially serious - evidence not supported by the figures from India - or vaccines are very highly effective against it - if not in spreading it, at least in reducing its severity.
In neither case should we be talking about delaying opening up.
Have we established the dead double jabbed cases where definitely two or more weeks beyond their second jab, which seems crucial to me.
Well, I haven’t personally.
There are cases of vaccine failure, even with double dose. It’s hardly surprising therefore if these people who have sadly died despite being double jabbed are another example of it. That’s one reason why to stop people getting ill we need to jab as many people as possible.
I agree. I doubt anyone is arguing that we shouldn't vaccinate as many people as possible. Well, except Lozza Fox. But the question is should we be locking down again because of the new variant while we do more vaccination and I think the government is right to not make a decision yet, but is clearly minded to not reintroduce further restrictions and indeed to stick to 21st deadline on new stuff.
Ultimately, unless there is a huge spike in hospitalisations I don’t see lockdown being extended.
Credit where credit is due, Johnson has not reacted by locking down too soon and too hard. Far from it. He’s always locked down too little, too late. Arguably, his worst mistake in the whole pandemic was not closing schools on December 1st and while I vehemently disagreed with that decision and it was clearly the wrong decision, it does show he doesn’t lock down for the sake of it.
Arguably the worst was way back in spring 2020, allowing the Cheltenham festival to go ahead, the Liverpoool CL match, the Bath half etc.
We lost the battle very early on.
But it still would have crept in and spread. I no longer believe it would have been possible to do a New Zealand and hermetically seal our borders. And if the Kiwis and Aussies don't hurry up and get their populations vaccinated then I know where I'd rather be right now. A hermetically sealed country is no way to exist.
I like your 'credit where credit's due' line. We made mistakes early on, mostly rectified them and since then have steered a pretty good course through these troubled waters whilst pouring all of our effort into brilliant vaccine development and roll out. We were the first country in the world to administer the Pfizer jab, a moment of searing optimism that has continued.
I'm sorry for people who can't bring themselves to acknowledge this success. Genuinely sorry. They must be very miserable.
Discussed repeatedly, but more people travelled on the tube every day, in more cramped conditions, with far worse ventilation, than all that weeks big sporting events combined. And then commuted back to thousands of different towns and villages.
I think there's a difference between Cheltenham and the Liverpool game.
The spectators at Cheltenham wouldn't have stayed in their homes if it had been cancelled but would have been doing alternative things - with a fair few thousand travelling on the tube every day.
Whereas for the Liverpool game that likely brought it an extra dollop of covid from Madrid.
Yes about 3000 extra from Madrid that week for the Liverpool game. In pre covid times about 700,000 people per week travel between Spain and the UK. It was normal life that spread the disease around, not mass sport events.
Wasn't Madrid an early epicentre of covid in Spain ?
And it was the initial lockdown which accelerated the spread in Spain as people left Madrid for their holiday homes ?
Yes and yes. But many multiples of than 3000 travelled between Madrid and the UK every week, regardless of what football matches is on.
An academic study out yesterday suggested that the U.K. had seen a decline of £110bn in our service exports because of Brexit. (This is before the impact of Covid).
Luckily, 50 jobs are said to have been created in a ketchup factory.
As it happens, I’m not 100% sure how strong the academic study’s methodology was - and no paper bothered to dig into it - but it shows how unbalanced our media is that it was the ketchup story that led.
Both crooked donations were recorded correctly , nothing to see here move along, as Tories we record our desperately dodgy donations under fake companies correctly don't you know.
And they still look better than the SNP finances...
Cheeks of the same arse almost , except Tories get money for favours from the rich , SNP just ponzi the plebs.
On topic I was out in Edinburgh last night. It was pretty quiet. We had to log in at the pub but there was no question of booking or indeed a time limit. They had put plastic screens up between the tables but it wasn't much of a problem given the numbers there. Table service and a tab. We ended up with 4 from 4 different households. I think that was technically illegal but no one cared. By the time we left there was no one else in the pub. In fairness it was a nice night and those establishments with outdoor facilities were probably doing better.
Myself and a friend then went into a restaurant for a meal.. No logging in at all. Staff wearing masks but that was it. Again there were maybe 3 tables being used so it wasn't exactly cheek by jowl.
I think Nicola is being even more delusional than normal in these anxious decisions about whether areas are in zone 1 or 2. No one gives a damn and most have already moved on. Those who are concerned are just not coming out which must be killing many of these establishments.
Remarkable that she didn't learn the lesson of the festive period when various parties were demanding that Nicola should let the bars and restaurants of Edinburgh let rip.
The position in December was very different because only a very small percentage of the population had been vaccinated then. The risk reward ratio is now completely different and that should be reflected in policy.
I think Nicola likes the adulation too much, she will drag it out as long as she can possibly do it. She is running out of independence excuses.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
What he means is "I am struggling to find staff who will work for what I want to pay them"
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
A few small things.
1) A range of jobs that were of the leave-school-at-18-and-get-skills-on-the-job type were converted from well paid to minimum wage. 2) Minimum wage enforcement 3) The gig economy
For quite a few people, the last few years has been watching their wages go down. Think about that. Down. Not level. Down.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
What he means is "I am struggling to find staff who will work for what I want to pay them"
As HardCoreThatcheriteNeonNaziEnslaverOfTheOppressed, may I suggest he tries raising wages?
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
You can argue the toss about terminology all you want (the minimum wage is far less than the living wage, so by definition is not a living wage) and it was a driver of Brexit.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
A few small things.
1) A range of jobs that were of the leave-school-at-18-and-get-skills-on-the-job type were converted from well paid to minimum wage. 2) Minimum wage enforcement 3) The gig economy
For quite a few people, the last few years has been watching their wages go down. Think about that. Down. Not level. Down.
1) Can you provide any examples? 2) Any evidence that minimum wage flouting has been anything other than insignificant? 3) Gig economy <> low cost labour “coming to England”.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
You can argue the toss about terminology all you want (the minimum wage is far less than the living wage, so by definition is not a living wage) and it was a driver of Brexit.
It may have been a driver, but like most/all drivers it was based on faulty logic and/or lies.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
You can argue the toss about terminology all you want (the minimum wage is far less than the living wage, so by definition is not a living wage) and it was a driver of Brexit.
It may have been a driver, but like most/all drivers it was based on faulty logic and/or lies.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
A few small things.
1) A range of jobs that were of the leave-school-at-18-and-get-skills-on-the-job type were converted from well paid to minimum wage. 2) Minimum wage enforcement 3) The gig economy
For quite a few people, the last few years has been watching their wages go down. Think about that. Down. Not level. Down.
1) Can you provide any examples? 2) Any evidence that minimum wage flouting has been anything other than insignificant? 3) Gig economy <> low cost labour “coming to England”.
1) Print shop work, for example. 2) Haven't you heard what was dug up in the factories around Leicester? 3) The low end of the gig economy is used precisely because it evades the minimum wage issue.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
Having young people from the EU coming to do such work was a win-win, filling the jobs at relatively low cost, whilst the value of the experience to the young Europeans was enhanced by the free language immersion they were getting on the side; second language fluency in English being a very valuable career skill for them. Not to mention the hopefully lifelong understanding and affinity with Britain they’d take back home. And fewer Europeans walking around speaking English with silly American accents.
Cutting ourselves off from this beneficial exchange was an own goal.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
Having young people from the EU coming to do such work was a win-win, filling the jobs at relatively low cost, whilst the value of the experience to the young Europeans was enhanced by the free language immersion they were getting on the side; second language fluency in English being a very valuable career skill for them. Not to mention the hopefully lifelong understanding and affinity with Britain they’d take back home. And fewer Europeans walking around speaking English with silly American accents.
Cutting ourselves off from this beneficial exchange was an own goal.
Ah, so you haven't seen how it really works at the bottom of the wage ladder.
No, it isn't some kind of Erasmus Program for the low paid.
And strangely, those who can't get jobs because the wages aren't enough to live on aren't impressed.
But you cry, if you can't live off the wages, how can *anyone* do the job?
Well, it works like this. We were looking at moving. My wife arranged to view a house in a very nice, expensive, leafy suburb of London. It turned out to be slum (the landlord was ill, retiring and wanted to cash in) - 2+ adults in every room (one bathroom was being used as a bedroom). From the pile of bikes in the back garden, half worked as delivery riders.
Welcome to the world were there are people living in garden sheds....
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
I am liking this new pastoral Conservatism. In an earlier thread we were told cut benefits. Work or starve.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
I am liking this new pastoral Conservatism. In an earlier thread we were told cut benefits. Work or starve.
Not by me.
I find the denial that providing an endless source of cheap, low skilled labour holds low end wages down hilarious.
Come to think of it, most of the chaps in that slum I saw were from West Africa. If importing lots of cheap labour and paying them shit is good, why not import them and pay them nothing?
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
You can argue the toss about terminology all you want (the minimum wage is far less than the living wage, so by definition is not a living wage) and it was a driver of Brexit.
It may have been a driver, but like most/all drivers it was based on faulty logic and/or lies.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
I am liking this new pastoral Conservatism. In an earlier thread we were told cut benefits. Work or starve.
Not by me.
I find the denial that providing an endless source of cheap, low skilled labour holds low end wages down hilarious.
Come to think of it, most of the chaps in that slum I saw were from West Africa. If importing lots of cheap labour and paying them shit is good, why not import them and pay them nothing?
Could I have a statue, please?
What slum? You seem to have entered the world of Brexit fantasy.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
We have a decent minimum wage, so no it was not “low cost labour”.
You can argue the toss about terminology all you want (the minimum wage is far less than the living wage, so by definition is not a living wage) and it was a driver of Brexit.
It may have been a driver, but like most/all drivers it was based on faulty logic and/or lies.
I see in the Times this morning that Tim Martin from Weatherspoons is calling for a visa scheme for workers that favours countries that are geographically closer to the U.K. because pubs are struggling to find staff.
Pay them more.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
I am liking this new pastoral Conservatism. In an earlier thread we were told cut benefits. Work or starve.
Not by me.
I find the denial that providing an endless source of cheap, low skilled labour holds low end wages down hilarious.
Come to think of it, most of the chaps in that slum I saw were from West Africa. If importing lots of cheap labour and paying them shit is good, why not import them and pay them nothing?
Could I have a statue, please?
What slum? You seem to have entered the world of Brexit fantasy.
The one I mentioned below - house in multiple occupation pushed to the max. 2+ adults per room - even a bathroom converted into a bedroom.
I voted remain, by the way. But I don't shut my eyes as to why it happened.
Comments
Of those deaths 115 involved #coronavirus, 49 fewer than the previous week and the FOURTH lowest in any week since March last year @ONS
https://twitter.com/DarrenGBNews/status/1400020497350508545?s=20
But no, after the child process had started!
The problem was that the response to the growing political dimension was to deny it existed. Then to claim it was always there, since 195X.....
Some people
So, departing from the superstate to revert to status quo ante - a free trade area - was the logical path. Until fuck business came along and now we're stuck in a trade cold war and harming ourselves whilst simultaneously indulging in flag twattery trying to make out that everything is awesome and we are able to do what we want and not follow any rules at all.
Luckily, 50 jobs are said to have been created in a ketchup factory.
As it happens, I’m not 100% sure how strong the academic study’s methodology was - and no paper bothered to dig into it - but it shows how unbalanced our media is that it was the ketchup story that led.
As someone in a prior thread pointed out, low cost labour coming to the U.K. to drive down wages was a part of the reason for the brexit vote.
1) A range of jobs that were of the leave-school-at-18-and-get-skills-on-the-job type were converted from well paid to minimum wage.
2) Minimum wage enforcement
3) The gig economy
For quite a few people, the last few years has been watching their wages go down. Think about that. Down. Not level. Down.
2) Any evidence that minimum wage flouting has been anything other than insignificant?
3) Gig economy <> low cost labour “coming to England”.
2) Haven't you heard what was dug up in the factories around Leicester?
3) The low end of the gig economy is used precisely because it evades the minimum wage issue.
Cutting ourselves off from this beneficial exchange was an own goal.
No, it isn't some kind of Erasmus Program for the low paid.
And strangely, those who can't get jobs because the wages aren't enough to live on aren't impressed.
But you cry, if you can't live off the wages, how can *anyone* do the job?
Well, it works like this. We were looking at moving. My wife arranged to view a house in a very nice, expensive, leafy suburb of London. It turned out to be slum (the landlord was ill, retiring and wanted to cash in) - 2+ adults in every room (one bathroom was being used as a bedroom). From the pile of bikes in the back garden, half worked as delivery riders.
Welcome to the world were there are people living in garden sheds....
What has it taken to get to 500,000?
Thread (1 / 12)
https://twitter.com/CovidGenomicsUK/status/1400056349266952195?s=20
I find the denial that providing an endless source of cheap, low skilled labour holds low end wages down hilarious.
Come to think of it, most of the chaps in that slum I saw were from West Africa. If importing lots of cheap labour and paying them shit is good, why not import them and pay them nothing?
Could I have a statue, please?
You seem to have entered the world of Brexit fantasy.
I voted remain, by the way. But I don't shut my eyes as to why it happened.