RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:BTW, in support of Labour's plans to reduce the working week...

https://www.businessinsider.com/microso ... ?r=US&IR=T

Would love to see how it would work in schools, or healthcare.....

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, in support of Labour's plans to reduce the working week...

https://www.businessinsider.com/microso ... ?r=US&IR=T

Would love to see how it would work in schools, or healthcare.....

I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, in support of Labour's plans to reduce the working week...

https://www.businessinsider.com/microso ... ?r=US&IR=T

Would love to see how it would work in schools, or healthcare.....

I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

I'd love to know how you fund less working hours (32 hours is the proposal- is that also the 4 day week thing?) either of those, even assuming you need to cost in higher wages, from productivity....which is the proposal.

We do need to look at this anyway, but promising it with no increase in cost, especially in the public sector seems 'optimistic'.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, in support of Labour's plans to reduce the working week...

https://www.businessinsider.com/microso ... ?r=US&IR=T

Would love to see how it would work in schools, or healthcare.....

I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Would love to see how it would work in schools, or healthcare.....

I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

I meant a four day working and four day school week. Sync parents’ and kids’ work and school days and hours a bit more. Yeah, I can see the issues of a longer school day for the youngsters but if I can do a 9-5 school day from age 12 then so can today’s snowflakes It might also force a bit more sport into the school day if the kids are too young for that length of time in the classroom. I won’t try and pretend I know anything about education, though. I struggle to get to the end of the week with my own kids without forgetting at least one piece of homework or an extra curricular activity, let alone worrying about anyone else’s. Tbh, was just trying to find something in the policy beyond ‘have your cake and eat it’.

Personally I would always have leapt at the chance of a 4 day week, even if it meant 4/5ths pay.

It would be great for school kids too, they're worked too bloody hard as it is (not expecting that to change any time soon though).

It's at nice target to aim at, but it'll take some working out.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Probably. Corbyn was launching that yesterday and apparently has documents to prove it. If true (and frankly who knows) it could be a real argument for Corbyn to deploy.

Sounds like Corbyn is overplaying what he has, and too it sounds like they're going to go with more of a Eurosceptic theme as they're worried about Labour leave voters, how many of those they can add without losing remainers to the Lib Dems I don't know, possibly a fair way given the Lid Dems have gone for a full on socks and sandals approach.

Libdems now muttering about a second referendum.....

On the Corbyn 'big reveal'....depends how you want to interpret trade talks I suppose.

I had to laugh when they got Tarzan up in front of their lectern and he straight away called their policy of not having a 2nd referendum daft

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Personally I would always have leapt at the chance of a 4 day week, even if it meant 4/5ths pay.

It would be great for school kids too, they're worked too bloody hard as it is (not expecting that to change any time soon though).

It's at nice target to aim at, but it'll take some working out.

I think that's part of it, though. Labour are pretty much saying that we've been stagnating, merely letting the rich get richer, and not using advances to advance society as a whole and we want to change that.

Only problem...

They're not actively saying it, ffs!

Seriously, the people running the comms and marketing for left and centrist political parties are useless.

There is fake news left, right and centre - even the sandal wearing, holier than thou, serial do gooders the Lib Dem’s are at it now - but I can finally bring you some impartial analysis none of us can argue with:

Mellsblue wrote:There is fake news left, right and centre - even the sandal wearing, holier than thou, serial do gooders the Lib Dem’s are at it now - but I can finally bring you some impartial analysis none of us can argue with:

I for one don't like the use of UK as a plural noun

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
I think that’s why they plan to phase it in...

Or I hope so.

Would need to make those roles more appealing, which would mean higher wages.

Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

I haven't looked at the manifesto, but surely the simplest implementation is to give employees the right by law to work 4 days a week if they wish. That's how it works here in the Netherlands and many do work just 4 days per week (often 4 x 9 hrs), especially if they have kids.

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observa ... lexibility

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Borrowing costs historic low.

Until they’re not.
Markets tend not to like lending to heavily indebted govts with a history of renationalising sectors. Even if Labour do keep the international markets on side, it only takes a crisis not of your making to send all your plans up in smoke. Ask Brown. He’d ended boom and bust until he hadn’t.

Borrowing costs are low because there has been a huge decrease in the supply of sovereign debt assets in the market due to all the quantitative easing. The bank of England owns about 25% of government debt so the gov is not as in debt as is generally made out.

The GFC was not caused by Brown, it was born in the US by badly rated mortgage derivatives and the housing bubble popping. It was not caused by too much borrowing here. That's a brainless narrative that only someone who is regurgitating Tory lies would push.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Borrowing costs historic low.

Until they’re not.
Markets tend not to like lending to heavily indebted govts with a history of renationalising sectors. Even if Labour do keep the international markets on side, it only takes a crisis not of your making to send all your plans up in smoke. Ask Brown. He’d ended boom and bust until he hadn’t.

Borrowing costs are low because there has been a huge decrease in the supply of sovereign debt assets in the market due to all the quantitative easing. The bank of England owns about 25% of government debt so the gov is not as in debt as is generally made out.

The GFC was not caused by Brown, it was born in the US by badly rated mortgage derivatives and the housing bubble popping. It was not caused by too much borrowing here. That's a brainless narrative that only someone who is regurgitating Tory lies would push.

I know why borrowing costs are low. I also know, given the history of the world economy, that it is highly unlikely it will always be that way.

Where did I say it was Brown's fault? I literally said "it only takes a crisis not of your own making" and then used the 'credit crunch' as an example of it under mining Brown's economic plan through no fault of his own.

"The Conservative Party is threatening to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations after the broadcaster replaced Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at Thursday night’s election debate.

In a dramatic escalation of the war of words between the Tories and Channel 4 that will likely provoke outcry, a Conservative source told BuzzFeed News that if they win the coming election they will reassess the channel’s public service broadcasting licence."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/bo ... channel-4s

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

I meant a four day working and four day school week. Sync parents’ and kids’ work and school days and hours a bit more. Yeah, I can see the issues of a longer school day for the youngsters but if I can do a 9-5 school day from age 12 then so can today’s snowflakes It might also force a bit more sport into the school day if the kids are too young for that length of time in the classroom. I won’t try and pretend I know anything about education, though. I struggle to get to the end of the week with my own kids without forgetting at least one piece of homework or an extra curricular activity, let alone worrying about anyone else’s. Tbh, was just trying to find something in the policy beyond ‘have your cake and eat it’.

It’s a nice idea as I said and that seems the consensus. But the detail matters, and there is none.

Which Tyler wrote:"The Conservative Party is threatening to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations after the broadcaster replaced Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at Thursday night’s election debate.

In a dramatic escalation of the war of words between the Tories and Channel 4 that will likely provoke outcry, a Conservative source told BuzzFeed News that if they win the coming election they will reassess the channel’s public service broadcasting licence."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/bo ... channel-4s

Idiots

Seems a bit too on the nose to even comment on the right’s view on censorship/freedom of speech here.

Zhivago wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Japan’s work culture is very different to ours. Also, working hard with the incentive of a four day week becoming permanent, is different to the incentive when a four day week is just the norm.
As Banquo points out, in public facing industries where cutting the service you provide to a four day week is an impossibility it would soon get very expensive, either to hire extra staff or pay people to stick to five day week. I believe someone has already done the sums for the NHS and it’s tens of billions a year. However, I’d imagine schools would just go to a four day week. This would probably include slightly longer days, which would suit working parents.
If it can be made to work then great, but I’m sceptical.

last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

I haven't looked at the manifesto, but surely the simplest implementation is to give employees the right by law to work 4 days a week if they wish. That's how it works here in the Netherlands and many do work just 4 days per week (often 4 x 9 hrs), especially if they have kids.

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observa ... lexibility

Which is fine if the employer doesn’t have to cover staff over five or more days per week. This sounds ideal in theory but as demonstrated with the NHS debate, it looks like Labour haven’t thought it through properly. Some employers could manage this, others could not.

And labours policy demanded a reduction in total working hours, not compressing full time into four days.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:"The Conservative Party is threatening to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations after the broadcaster replaced Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at Thursday night’s election debate.

In a dramatic escalation of the war of words between the Tories and Channel 4 that will likely provoke outcry, a Conservative source told BuzzFeed News that if they win the coming election they will reassess the channel’s public service broadcasting licence."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/bo ... channel-4s

Idiots

Yep. Ridiculous. Dangerous, in fact. It was just as ridiculous to side step the debate. The Conservatives actually have a pretty good ‘green’ record whilst in govt. Boris is living with the lady who drove a lot of it so wouldn’t have had to look too far for some prep. It’s an own goal, followed by an even bigger own goal.
Though, I suppose those on here who constantly bang on about the BBC and the written press all being bias against Labour will have some sympathy with Tories facing a bias C4.......

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Banquo wrote: last thing kids need is longer days at school tbh, and 4 day school week with 5 day a week working parents is a bit of a child care mare. I've had a look at the manifesto and no thought is present about how all this might work, save being funded through productivity and no loss of earnings. Its a lovely idea at this point.

I haven't looked at the manifesto, but surely the simplest implementation is to give employees the right by law to work 4 days a week if they wish. That's how it works here in the Netherlands and many do work just 4 days per week (often 4 x 9 hrs), especially if they have kids.

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observa ... lexibility

Which is fine if the employer doesn’t have to cover staff over five or more days per week. This sounds ideal in theory but as demonstrated with the NHS debate, it looks like Labour haven’t thought it through properly. Some employers could manage this, others could not.

And labours policy demanded a reduction in total working hours, not compressing full time into four days.

Well yes, manifesto says 32 hour weeks, rather than 4 day weeks. It talks about enforcement but not about practicality and states it will be funded by ‘productivity’. I’m sure everyone would jump at that if it cost them nothing personally. Not sure how the productivity paradigm would work in many parts of the workplace tho.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:"The Conservative Party is threatening to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations after the broadcaster replaced Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at Thursday night’s election debate.

In a dramatic escalation of the war of words between the Tories and Channel 4 that will likely provoke outcry, a Conservative source told BuzzFeed News that if they win the coming election they will reassess the channel’s public service broadcasting licence."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/bo ... channel-4s

Idiots

Yep. Ridiculous. Dangerous, in fact. It was just as ridiculous to side step the debate. The Conservatives actually have a pretty good ‘green’ record whilst in govt. Boris is living with the lady who drove a lot of it so wouldn’t have had to look too far for some prep. It’s an own goal, followed by an even bigger own goal.
Though, I suppose those on here who constantly bang on about the BBC and the written press all being bias against Labour will have some sympathy with Tories facing a bias C4.......

Yep stupid to duck it with a defensible record, double stupid to send Gove and then double down. Trying to avoid being attacked by everyone else I suppose, but both pathetic and ill judged. His advisors seem as poor as Mays.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Idiots

Yep. Ridiculous. Dangerous, in fact. It was just as ridiculous to side step the debate. The Conservatives actually have a pretty good ‘green’ record whilst in govt. Boris is living with the lady who drove a lot of it so wouldn’t have had to look too far for some prep. It’s an own goal, followed by an even bigger own goal.
Though, I suppose those on here who constantly bang on about the BBC and the written press all being bias against Labour will have some sympathy with Tories facing a bias C4.......

Yep stupid to duck it with a defensible record, double stupid to send Gove and then double down. Trying to avoid being attacked by everyone else I suppose, but both pathetic and ill judged. His advisors seem as poor as Mays.

I don't know. Why stand up there and be shot at (and there's a lot of ammo - fracking, subsidies for oil and gas, cancelling renewable plans like the tidal barrage, removing funding for solar and win) when he so far appears to be getting away with it. He's dodging the Neil interview as well and it doesn't appear to be hurting him.

Plus, sending Gove to them strikes me more as worse punishment than reviewing their licence

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. Ridiculous. Dangerous, in fact. It was just as ridiculous to side step the debate. The Conservatives actually have a pretty good ‘green’ record whilst in govt. Boris is living with the lady who drove a lot of it so wouldn’t have had to look too far for some prep. It’s an own goal, followed by an even bigger own goal.
Though, I suppose those on here who constantly bang on about the BBC and the written press all being bias against Labour will have some sympathy with Tories facing a bias C4.......

Yep stupid to duck it with a defensible record, double stupid to send Gove and then double down. Trying to avoid being attacked by everyone else I suppose, but both pathetic and ill judged. His advisors seem as poor as Mays.

I don't know. Why stand up there and be shot at (and there's a lot of ammo - fracking, subsidies for oil and gas, cancelling renewable plans like the tidal barrage, removing funding for solar and win) when he so far appears to be getting away with it. He's dodging the Neil interview as well and it doesn't appear to be hurting him.

Puja

Oh I get the risk and reward piece, can almost see the logic. But it’s a very bad look, and I think cumulatively he will cop it.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Idiots

Yep. Ridiculous. Dangerous, in fact. It was just as ridiculous to side step the debate. The Conservatives actually have a pretty good ‘green’ record whilst in govt. Boris is living with the lady who drove a lot of it so wouldn’t have had to look too far for some prep. It’s an own goal, followed by an even bigger own goal.
Though, I suppose those on here who constantly bang on about the BBC and the written press all being bias against Labour will have some sympathy with Tories facing a bias C4.......

Yep stupid to duck it with a defensible record, double stupid to send Gove and then double down. Trying to avoid being attacked by everyone else I suppose, but both pathetic and ill judged. His advisors seem as poor as Mays.

I do have some sympathy with the idea to send Gove. We don’t have a President, we have an executive. Gove was SoS at DEFRA so is probably more qualified than Johnson to debate on the subject.
I have to admit that I just don’t like the debates so may be bias. Perhaps, if we are to have topic/policy specific debate, bringing in those who have held or would hold the portfolio would be a good idea.

This little climb down from the editor of C4 news did amuse me, though. If only due to irony that it’s something almost straight from the Conservatives GE 2019 social media strategy playbook.