No seat is safe: Tory by-election defences – politicalbetting.com

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

England *could* do this. Highly unlikely. But that's better than the total oblivion they faced yesterday

And Winviz says...29% chance of England win.

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

londonpubman said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

England *could* do this. Highly unlikely. But that's better than the total oblivion they faced yesterday

And Winviz says...29% chance of England win.

It's more like 2.9%.

But I think we will give it a go! If we can get to close today no more than 2 wickets down then who knows!

👍

Well, yes, I suppose 0 is more like 2.9% than 29%.

We will give it a go because in the absence of Sibley and Foakes we have no batsmen who know how to block. But we will still lose.

But, more importantly, I should get at least one full session tomorrow

I do see your point.

But I'm not terribly optimistic for you.

You don't think England will last until lunch? That's overly pessimistic

No, and no it isn't.

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

pm215 said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

Yep but if productivity is the same as before and customer satisfaction is equal or better what exactly is the problem?

And from what I've read both of the above seem to be true - and other places have shown similar results..

The only way productivity can remain the same though is if they were wasting 20% of their working time doing stuff other than what they were being paid too.

Example Someone working on a council tax enquiry line, lets say each enquiry takes 10 minutes on average to resolve. Now there is no way you can make that faster. So under a 5 day week they would have done 40 * 6 = 240 calls. On a 4 day week they can do a maximum of 32*6 calls for 192.

Now if after each call they were spending a few minutes gassing with colleagues and now they don't and just do them back to back yes productivity can remain the same. However the answer is not reduce the working days but reduce the skiving off.

I went down slough council offices a couple of times when I lived there and you could see it in action. They would call a number, deal with a client then spend a few minutes chatting to the colleague beside them before calling another number. It was bloody infuriating.

A lot of things you cannot do faster so I am sorry no I don't believe productivity is the same just that they were poorly managed. Now in a trial I am sure they will give it their all to show productivity doesn't drop. Who wouldn't to keep a 4 day week....however once the 4 day week is embedded and accepted I fully expect them to return to dallying between tasks.

This is not just a public sector issue you see the same in the private sector, people scrolling on their phones when they are meant to be doing what they are paid for etc or chatting round the coffee machine.

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.

The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.

But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?

We should be forced to work eight days a week, with no lunch break, and get up 'alf an hour afore we go to bed, like in good old days.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

England *could* do this. Highly unlikely. But that's better than the total oblivion they faced yesterday

And Winviz says...29% chance of England win.

I’ll take a guess that Betfair considers that to be rather optimistic.

Do England dare scrap Bazball in favour of Boycottball, or do they see if they can get halfway to the total tonight?

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Good point. I thought compressed hours was an entirely different idea. I work 4.5 days a week, 37.5 hours.

(It's not compressed hours: https://www.scambs.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/four-day-working-week-trial/)

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s Canada day today.

I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.

In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.

I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.

The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.

That would be one of the underlying premises.
Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.

(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).

And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?

It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)

It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra

To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England

in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower

Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.

UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.

But Australia etc could be a further leg.
And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.

To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO

And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world

Australia’s main orientation is (against) China, with US support as a hedge.

Canada is dual facing (Pacific/Atlantic). It’s a much more logical fit.

Anglo-Canada could use Australian/NZ CER (Closer Economic Relationship) as a model. But alongside that, bespoke finance, energy, mineral, and defence agreements. And Britain would commit to sharing its seat on the UN Permanent Council with Canada.

stodge said:

Gardenwalker said:

This morning (the beginning of a long weekend here), I have inexplicably softened toward Rishi.

He’s toothless, hopeless, already yesterday’s man.
I no longer need to worry so much about him. Anger is subsiding to indifference.

My ire is starting to turn toward Starmer.
I don’t like some of the straws in the wind.

Labour are authoritarian centralisers - we know that, it's nothing new...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

Advocates of the idea have claimed that people are more motivated and productive working a four-day week. If they're right then you'd get more output for the same pay, even if people were technically working for fewer hours.

The council in this trial claimed to have saved a lot of money because the offer a four-day week has helped them to recruit permanent staff in place of the expensive agency staff they previously relied upon.

But, obviously, it looks like skiving, so who cares whether it's actually a good idea? Maybe everyone should be forced back to a six day week with no increase in pay?

We should be forced to work eight days a week, with no lunch break, and get up 'alf an hour afore we go to bed, like in good old days.

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

Twitter seems to have fallen over.
For me, at least.

Me too. Hope it is a reset to let us see tweets again without logging on.

New Musk wheeze apparently. You have to be logged on in order to see Tweets.

It;s clever and sensible. In fact it's amazing Twiter haven't done this before

solarflare said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Indeed. It's an important distinction.

I (by choice) compress my 5 day working week into 4 longer days, so even if there's no benefit to me having that extra rest day I should still be net the same in productivity. Previously I did a 4 day week where I voluntarily sacrificed 20% of salary, so the 20% reduction in productivity was "fair" in that sense.

It is a bit more of a stretch to say "I'll have the same money for 20% less work", in my mind.

Sandpit said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.

The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

Sandpit said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.

The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

Ah, thanks. Now I'm as confused as everyone else, though in reality this is prtetty conclusive.

The argument against, for public-facing roles at least, is that the shifts are primarily designed for the staff rather than the customers - there are fewer staff available for the peak hours of demand, and overall service levels suffer as a result.

That's not actually true.

For example most of the public work during normal office hours, the council staff are now working until 7pm for example, adding two hours extra for the public to contact them.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

pm215 said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.

Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.

Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.

Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.

Is that true ?
(Not his being a fool.)
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england
… In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury.
Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again.
Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

a

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

If their output over those hours was the same as before then surely it doesn't matter? It just reflects an increase in productivity (output per hour). That's what the studies keep finding.

Indeed, historically a large chunk of productivity gains didin't manifest as increased economic output but as reduced working hours and participation rates. Off the top of my head, I think productivity growth during the 20th century was 2%, but hours per week dropped by 0.5% per annum.

This is a good thing. The target economy sees us all having a great time and doing very little work.

In some ways, restricting hours might actually boost productivity in itself. If my manager put me on a 3 day working week and asked for the same output, I reckon I could rustle up some better code, project management, get more out of my colleagues. Spend less time on PB...

Is that 4 day week actually one of the same length of days, or longer days? That news report isn't at all clear. And in many workplaces, the 4 day week means precisely the latter. When I was working in a job, some of my colleagues had either a full working week of 37 hours compressed into 4 days, or a shorter working week of fewer hours in 3-4 days.

Compressed working, so Pagan was wrong.



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11789/response/29489/attach/4/Flexible Working Policy.pdf

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.

Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

pm215 said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.

Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.

Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.

Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.

Is that true ?
(Not his being a fool.)
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england
… In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury.
Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again.
Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...

Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.

In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Give it 20 mins and it will be down to requiring superhero effort from Root and Stokes....

boulay said:

dixiedean said:

With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school.
My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared.
The kids were rested and ready to learn.
The staff unstressed.
Which led to a virtuous spiral.
Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.

As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?

Eabhal said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

pm215 said:

Pagan2 said:

another_richard said:

ohnotnow said:

https://news.sky.com/story/minister-tells-council-to-immediately-end-four-day-week-experiment-over-value-for-money-concerns-12912909

"A minister has ordered a local council to end its experiment with a four-day week "immediately" over concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

South Cambridgeshire District Council, the first local authority in the UK to undertake such a trial, had announced plans to extend it until April.

Local government minister Lee Rowley wrote to Liberal Democrat council leader Bridget Smith to "ask that you end your experiment immediately" and say he had concerns about the "value for money" for local taxpayers.

...

"There is no good reason to end this trial, which is already bringing many benefits to council workers, local residents and saving the council money."

Council leader Ms Smith replied to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the matter, saying independently reviewed data showed "performance was maintained at the level shortly before the trial, while some areas of performance data saw significant improvement compared to recent data."

Perhaps a 4 day week should be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in council tax.

I think the objection is to the trial for tax payers that working hours were cut by 20% but wages are still at 100%, so basically a 20% pay rise for all those workers

That verdict should be for the tax payers to deliver (or not), though, not central government.

Should be remembered that most money for local government does come from central government.

Equally, I think the minister concerned is behaving like a fool. It's worth waiting to get some proper data from an extended trial.

Not that surprising admittedly, given he is a fool, but still depressing.

Is that true ?
(Not his being a fool.)
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england
… In 2019/20, local authorities in England received 23% of their funding from government grants, 50% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury.
Unlike central government, local authorities cannot borrow to finance day-to-day spending, and so they must either run balanced budgets or draw down reserves – money built up by underspending in earlier years – to ensure that their annual spending does not exceed their annual revenue. But reserves can only be used once. Once reserves are spent, they cannot be spent again.
Local government in England has very limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2014, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Twelve percent of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 17% collected locally or federally in Italy, 30% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada...

Apparently not. My information was clearly out of date.

In which case, he's an even bigger fool than I thought which is some achievement.

Don't forget about "service income", stuff like swimming pool and social care fees, which show up in the spending stats as they are reported on a net basis. This is a huge source of income for local government.

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

French President Emmanuel Macron is postponing his scheduled visit to Germany.

Trying to catch another Elton John concert this weekend?

It was a State Visit as well. That's a lot of spoiled kartoffelsalat

Must be serious

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

In August 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada voted almost unanimously to incorporate the organization's proposals as party policy following its annual convention, held in Halifax.

(In reference to the CANZUK lobby group, based in Vancouver).

Britain with prairies, and a Pacific shore.
What’s not to like?

We could agitate to get Washington, Oregon and California to join and cut the mainland US off from the Pacific.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Working hours anecdata: I used to work in a unit with a 4-day, 40 hour week. Everyone loved it and did not want to transfer out. But here's the odd thing, no-one who did transfer to a normal work week ever asked to go back to four days.

Also, btw, when totting up hours worked, remember to account for fewer tea-breaks and lunch hours in a 4-day week.

It's about synchronising everything with your family. If one of you works 4 days a week and the other 5 days a week.

One of the my biggest relationship challenges early in my career was one of us had holiday year end in December and the other in March.

Trying to align those was fun. particularly when one of the holiday policies was use or lose it.

boulay said:

dixiedean said:

boulay said:

dixiedean said:

With the Bank Holidays and strike days, we had a spell of 4 consecutive 4 day weeks at school.
My anecdotal experience was that the levels of behaviour and achievement soared.
The kids were rested and ready to learn.
The staff unstressed.
Which led to a virtuous spiral.
Absolutely no chance we'd get the chance of an experiment, mind.

As a counter, we had five and a half days a week (including Saturday mornings), finishing Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm, with compulsory study from 7-9 every evening apart from Sunday and behaviour wasn’t an issue and we were rested and ready to learn. Maybe it’s not about the time spent at school?

I assume that's at boarding school?

Yes, but you mentioned an experiment and surely there is an experiment already going on where there are students spending long hours “in school” compared to the accepted timetable in State Schools where you can compare hours spent in schools against other metrics.

As I know absolutely nothing about being a teacher I can’t hope to know your experience but I’ve always wondered why the school day isn’t changed, with any necessary uplift in pay for teachers, to finish after 5pm for 13+ as it would have the benefit of freeing up parents to work a full day rather than having to work part time which would be good for parents, productivity and tax receipts surely.

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s Canada day today.

I keep meaning to write a thread header, but can’t be arsed.

In a nutshell, post-Brexit Britain should prioritise economic, industrial and security integration with Canada to create a moderate, liberal “hedge” to US hegemony within the Western order, and a powerful energy, finance and cultural player of 110m that stretches from London to Vancouver.

I quite like this idea. Canada is still one of the most moderately civilised places in the world.

The only amendation I would make is that i'd still like us to have close relations with our European neighbours, at the same time.

That would be one of the underlying premises.
Anglo-Canada would seek stronger relations with Europe precisely to avoid over-dependence on the USA.

(And the UK needs to anyway for basic economic reasons).

And why not add Australia? Also has English common law, also part of the monarchy, for now?

It's hardly a new idea, but I heartily agree. CANAUK (NZ are a bit too pathetic and reliant on China for now)

It would be quite a mighty "nation", with enormous resources, great universities, global influence and oresence. We could cycle the parliament betweem London, Ottawa and Canberra

To be even more radical the four UK nations could join independently, making CANENGNIWASCO, which is a neat and catchy name in itself, and that would balance out the Scottish sense of being constantly outvoted by overdominant England

in fact I'd add Cornwall as a fifth nation, making CANENGNIWASCOCORN, and maybe make Lostwithiel the ultimate Federal capital of the entire new superpower

Because adding Australia lacks a bit of geographic and geopolitical logic.

UK and Canada are already both in NATO, and there’s only five hours time difference between London and Toronto.

But Australia etc could be a further leg.
And you’d expect Anglo-Canada to have a v strong relationship with Australia from the outset.

To be serious, I do like this idea - always have done - but I disagree on Australianot being a good fit. Oz is a Pacific power, so is Canada - just different sides of the Pacific. And Australia is alrrady in AUKUS, an embryonic global NATO

And yes a big liberal English speaking power, able to balance the lunacies of the USA, would be excellent for the West - and the world