Reform Party Ltd: what it stands for

[egb_hibs]

As you say, my prerogative but ask yourself, how can you even begin to trust a party whose leader only a few short months ago was video'd saying "Never trust a tory, I repeat, never trust a Tory" shortly before filling his party up with the very people he was vehement about never trusting. If he can backpedal so quickly on that, why would anyone believe anything that he or his party says?

4 of the councils they run, they took on the promise that they would cut waste [in a DOGE stylee] so that they would be run more cost-effectively, but since finding out that their own bullshit was just that, they are hiking up council tax by the maximum 5% allowable. So why would anyone think that once elected to government, they wouldn't throw all their promises in the bin?

I'm not saying anyone should trust anyone, only that this video sets out Reform's strategy by it's strategy guy, which is the best available answer to the question in the thread title!

That said I don't really think the language of inter party jibes means anything really, nor that former tories - or Labour if they come - MPs must somehow have changed their minds. People are obliged to tow the party line, that's the way the system works. Some will jump just to save their seat, sure, but others from conviction.

Given Kruger quit his first role in Tory government when a young high flyer, to go and work full in time in the charity he set up to help prisoners rebuild their lives, I'm not convinced he is one of the seat chasers.

 

[aggie]

I've not listened to everything the Eton-educated, Tory defector [and former speech writer for Boris Johnson] has to say because he's part of the elite that caused all the problems in the first place and one of those rats who deserted a [then] sinking tory ship to join another political party but who [like all the other defectors] is too much of a coward to have a by election to see if the electorate would still vote for him in his new role as part of the grifters Reformatives ensemble.

"Yeah, but what do they actually stand for, eh? What are their actual policy platforms, huh? HUH?

"Okay, well here is the guy who sort of decides all that stuff telling you."

"I'm not listening to that! He's one of them!"

 

[Smurf]

To return to the topic of the thread, here's a detailed view of what Reform intend from the horse's mouth, ie Reform's strategy bod. His stuff on their manifesto approach is interesting - not just what they will do, but how they will do it. The rationale is they need a clear mandate from the country to fight the vested interests, the Lords and the state apparatus that will try and thwart them.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Look forward to watching this.

 

[Dub]

"Yeah, but what do they actually stand for, eh? What are their actual policy platforms, huh? HUH?

"Okay, well here is the guy who sort of decides all that stuff telling you."

"I'm not listening to that! He's one of them!"

Except I said I didn't listen to all of it, so it might be worth getting it right if you're going to have a go.

 

[Dub]

Here here, let’s stick with a party who’s leader promised to kick out cronyism, and end sleaze , who appointed Mandelson despite knowing about his links to Epstein, who raised someone to the lords despite knowing about his links to a paedophile, who accepted gifts from someone then gave them the keys to number 10.
Honesty in politics eh, now wouldn’t that be novel.

I don't vote labour so if that's meant to aimed in my direction it is misplaced [but only by miles].

 

[1 Mcnamara]

Here here, let’s stick with a party who’s leader promised to kick out cronyism, and end sleaze , who appointed Mandelson despite knowing about his links to Epstein, who raised someone to the lords despite knowing about his links to a paedophile, who accepted gifts from someone then gave them the keys to number 10.
Honesty in politics eh, now wouldn’t that be novel.

Here here, let’s stick with an establishment which offers us all this.
Lies and corruption from the elitist Westminster cronies, who’d have thought that eh

 

[egb_hibs]

Here here, let’s stick with an establishment which offers us all this.
Lies and corruption from the elitist Westminster cronies, who’d have thought that eh

Without wishing to intrude on the, 'I have a hammer and so all problems are nails' theme here, the latest 'friends with pedos' brouhaha engulfing Starmer is centred on a Scottish councillor.

Meanwhile our own governing party are in bed with a party that may as well call themselves the Nonce party. This is civilisational level rot, the idea that Scots are separate from it evokes the worst exceptionalist pish of right wing nationalist scumbags the world over

 

[1 Mcnamara]

Without wishing to intrude on the, 'I have a hammer and so all problems are nails' theme here, the latest 'friends with pedos' brouhaha engulfing Starmer is centred on a Scottish councillor.

Meanwhile our own governing party are in bed with a party that may as well call themselves the Nonce party. This is civilisational level rot, the idea that Scots are separate from it evokes the worst exceptionalist pish of right wing nationalist scumbags the world over

Sorry sir, but you are interpreting my post as how you think . Not as how I mean them.
My frustration, in regards to my post, is that if “our” politicians, as in an independent Scottish government, behaved in such a disgusting way, we could hold them to task and boot them out. Where as the status quo is, we cannot.
We don’t really have a governing party do we? Not in the real sense of the word. We have a party who are allowed to baby sit us, and use their pocket money, while the parents call the shots and set the boundaries.
Westminster is a vile place which is never going to change. That is my frustration/sadness. You appear to have more patience in that respect, which is fine. But please take a minute sometimes to read what I post, and not what you think I post.

 

[egb_hibs]

Sorry sir, but you are interpreting my post as how you think . Not as how I mean them.
My frustration, in regards to my post, is that if “our” politicians, as in an independent Scottish government, behaved in such a disgusting way, we could hold them to task and boot them out. Where as the status quo is, we cannot.
We don’t really have a governing party do we? Not in the real sense of the word. We have a party who are allowed to baby sit us, and use their pocket money, while the parents call the shots and set the boundaries.
Westminster is a vile place which is never going to change. That is my frustration/sadness. You appear to have more patience in that respect, which is fine. But please take a minute sometimes to read what I post, and not what you think I post.

Fair does Maccers, but I return your serve with the point that this still implies a Scottish exceptionalism. What causes you to believe we would buck a civilisational trend especially as within current constraints our government has included arguably the most bananas party to sit in that capacity in the developed world, ie the greens?

As an aside, on the civilisational point: for me at least, this informs my current take on things and shrinks my enthusiasm for the only political project I have ever actively supported in my life, spanning childhood to my late 40s, ie Scottish independence. But for me at least that is now :

- small, indeed tiny, beer compared to the civilisational tumult now finally touching our sepia tinged backwater

- recognition that in this context time is desperately short for us to 'grow up' from the juvenile polity that results from being a diddy non governing nation and which produces results like the greens being in government

- it's already over : versus Scots becoming parents today, their children's generation will be 40% smaller, their grandchildrens generation will be two thirds smaller and their great grand children's 80% smaller. Unless indy is achieved within ten years it is gone forever.

Please disagree, but please take it in good faith that this is honestly how I see it and with great sadness. I have had my fill today of bods deciding that I am being 'right wing' because they don't like the facts as I understand them. And there is is no dubiety on the population ones here : without massive and unprecedented change, that's how it goes.

Its really hard for people to conceptualise exponential growth or 'degrowth' . We are not quite exponential - which would require 50% rather than 40% shrinkage - but hopefully you take the point. I am reminded of a covid video which used the spread of lily pads on a lake over 100 days from one lily pad to complete surface coverage over 100 days (or something like that). By the 96th day the lake is covered about 6 per cent. By day 100 it is covered 100%.

Unless we act pdq, questions like Scottish independence are laughably beside the point, something I take no pleasure in.

 

[1 Mcnamara]

Fair does Maccers, but I return your serve with the point that this still implies a Scottish exceptionalism. What causes you to believe we would buck a civilisational trend especially as within current constraints our government has included arguably the most bananas party to sit in that capacity in the developed world, ie the greens?

As an aside, on the civilisational point: for me at least, this informs my current take on things and shrinks my enthusiasm for the only political project I have ever actively supported in my life, spanning childhood to my late 40s, ie Scottish independence. But for me at least that is now :

- small, indeed tiny, beer compared to the civilisational tumult now finally touching our sepia tinged backwater

- recognition that in this context time is desperately short for us to 'grow up' from the juvenile polity that results from being a diddy non governing nation and which produces results like the greens being in government

- it's already over : versus Scots becoming parents today, their children's generation will be 40% smaller, their grandchildrens generation will be two thirds smaller and their great grand children's 80% smaller. Unless indy is achieved within ten years it is gone forever.

Please disagree, but please take it in good faith that this is honestly how I see it and with great sadness. I have had my fill today of bods deciding that I am being 'right wing' because they don't like the facts as I understand them. And there is is no dubiety on the population ones here : without massive and unprecedented change, that's how it goes.

Its really hard for people to conceptualise exponential growth or 'degrowth' . We are not quite exponential - which would require 50% rather than 40% shrinkage - but hopefully you take the point. I am reminded of a covid video which used the spread of lily pads on a lake over 100 days from one lily pad to complete surface coverage over 100 days (or something like that). By the 96th day the lake is covered about 6 per cent. By day 100 it is covered 100%.

Unless we act pdq, questions like Scottish independence are laughably beside the point, something I take no pleasure in.

That’s a lot for me to take in at this time of night, but for once I agree we are both met with sadness. From different view points, but prob closer than we think, but sadness non the same.
I ( we) should remember, that life goes on for me and you, and nothing in our lifetime is likely to change much. My worry for my daughter and son are my concern, as are yours for your loved youth, but I think we worry about different outcomes.
I may wrong, I often am.
But…. A person of your persuasion could be put to better use to having a slightly more positive attitude than the “end is nigh” . Our current situation MAY not get better, but it can only potentially get better with one movement.
I did live in hope, I only live in despair.
A mirror on my Hibs life . Strangely

 

[Keepitgreen]

versus Scots becoming parents today, their children's generation will be 40% smaller, their grandchildrens generation will be two thirds smaller and their great grand children's 80% smaller. Unless indy is achieved within ten years it is gone forever.

Would it cheer you up if I told you this is, in fact, very unlikely? Remember, in our previous chats on this you confirmed the above will only happen as long as everything stays the same as it has been; well the good news is, it's not, it hasn't been, and it won't. Phew!

I have had my fill today of bods deciding that I am being 'right wing'

Sorry for the hurty words eegie. It's only cos your constant punting on here of:

great replacement theory
transgender scaremongering
looney left-wing labelling
tommy robinson praise
DEI denigration
Trumpist grand plans

and a not insignificant number of other viewpoints besides (like the odd one or two mention of Corbyn, Blair and Brown being, well, worse than the devils themselves ) and well, it all just points to, er, exactly what right-wingers punt?

Pretty sure you're a fan of the old call a spade a spade chat as well - but pray tell, what term would you prefer I use for a person continuously espousing these views? Happy to use your preferred pronouns.

 

[egb_hibs]

Would it cheer you up if I told you this is, in fact, very unlikely? Remember, in our previous chats on this you confirmed the above will only happen as long as everything stays the same as it has been; well the good news is, it's not, it hasn't been, and it won't. Phew!

It would cheer me up if you had any basis for your claim beyond what you would like to happen.

To recover from where we are right now, Scots being born now would have to revert to birth rates not seen since before the pill. Where do you see that coming from?

This is just maths KiG. Of course what the maths enumerates could change. But why would you expect a 60 year trend so suddenly reverse to pre contraceptive rates? And pretty much immediately or it's too late.

Sorry for the hurty words eegie. It's only cos your constant punting on here of:

Its not hurty, it's just an embarrassing waste of time when grown men think that reality is right wing.

great replacement theory
transgender scaremongering
looney left-wing labelling
tommy robinson praise
DEI denigration
Trumpist grand plans

Nah lad.

I have rubbished great replacement theory many times, while noting that it has its origins in the fact that populations are being replaced in various locations. And a fact it is, no matter how icky facts may be.

Transgender scaremongering? Where? If cutting through your indoctrination to describe findings on the phenomenon is scaremongering, that can only be because you are scared of reality.

Looney left labelling? Yes i'll call a spade a spade, as I do also with the cranks of the woke right. So what?

TR praise? Really? I give my best assessment of the bloke including his negatives and the things he says that might have something to them. I'm not 9 years old and don't view the world through ideological blinkers - people don't have to split into darth vader or luke skywalker. The far right hate him BTW.

DEI denigration? Well yes, Im opposed to racism and other forms of discrimination. If that makes me right wing, great I'll be right wing

Trumpists grand plans. I refer you to the star wars point. I am repeatedly negative about him as an individual and on numerous of his actions or policies. There are others which I think would be good if they could be pulled off. This is how normal people think KiGers, rather than inhabiting world where people and anything they do or say are 100% evil or 100% good according to the last CBT from People and Development.

Quit thinking like a weegie KiGers. If someone doesn't support rangers it does not follow that they support celtic. I really do wonder if some of you ideologically minded guys can actually engage with what people say or whether you are compelled to mentally recast that to fit into a framework that keeps things manageable. It certainly feels like the latter, genuinely.

Finally and by far and away most importantly, even if I was Keith Joseph, that doesn't mean that facts I present are right wing. Facts are facts and this lobomotised nonsense that can only imbibe facts that are pleasing...well few things in life spook me, but that does

and a not insignificant number of other viewpoints besides (like the odd one or two mention of Corbyn, Blair and Brown being, well, worse than the devils themselves ) and well, it all just points to, er, exactly what right-wingers punt?

Yeah and my railing against global capital and anti semitism is exactly what various contradictory things known as right wing are renowned for.

Blair wrecked this country fella, and Corbyn is launching a sectarian party, building on his overseeing of Labour becoming riddled with racism. Of course I'm gonna criticise them.

Pretty sure you're a fan of the old call a spade a spade chat as well - but pray tell, what term would you prefer I use for a person continuously espousing these views? Happy to use your preferred pronouns.

Why do you have to call it anything? If I advocate a right wing policy please do feel free to call it that, assuming you can explain why is right wing. Ditto any left wing policy.

But why do you have to assign facts to a political stable? Or even views on problems? Do I have to be a communist if I am concerned by capitalist exploitation? Am I also far left?

I don't think so. I think one is a communist depending on what one proposes in response to that.

 

[Keepitgreen]

It would cheer me up if you had any basis for your claim beyond what you would like to happen.

To recover from where we are right now, Scots being born now would have to revert to birth rates not seen since before the pill. Where do you see that coming from?

This is just maths KiG. Of course what the maths enumerates could change. But why would you expect a 60 year trend so suddenly reverse to pre contraceptive rates? And pretty much immediately or it's too late.


Its not hurty, it's just an embarrassing waste of time when grown men think that reality is right wing.

Nah lad.

I have rubbished great replacement theory many times, while noting that it has its origins in the fact that populations are being replaced in various locations. And a fact it is, no matter how icky facts may be.

Transgender scaremongering? Where? If cutting through your indoctrination to describe findings on the phenomenon is scaremongering, that can only be because you are scared of reality.

Looney left labelling? Yes i'll call a spade a spade, as I do also with the cranks of the woke right. So what?

TR praise? Really? I give my best assessment of the bloke including his negatives and the things he says that might have something to them. I'm not 9 years old and don't view the world through ideological blinkers - people don't have to split into darth vader or luke skywalker. The far right hate him BTW.

DEI denigration? Well yes, Im opposed to racism and other forms of discrimination. If that makes me right wing, great I'll be right wing

Trumpists grand plans. I refer you to the star wars point. I am repeatedly negative about him as an individual and on numerous of his actions or policies. There are others which I think would be good if they could be pulled off. This is how normal people think KiGers, rather than inhabiting world where people and anything they do or say are 100% evil or 100% good according to the last CBT from People and Development.

Quit thinking like a weegie KiGers. If someone doesn't support rangers it does not follow that they support celtic. I really do wonder if some of you ideologically minded guys can actually engage with what people say or whether you are compelled to mentally recast that to fit into a framework that keeps things manageable. It certainly feels like the latter, genuinely.

Finally and by far and away most importantly, even if I was Keith Joseph, that doesn't mean that facts I present are right wing. Facts are facts and this lobomotised nonsense that can only imbibe facts that are pleasing...well few things in life spook me, but that does

Yeah and my railing against global capital and anti semitism is exactly what various contradictory things known as right wing are renowned for.

Blair wrecked this country fella, and Corbyn is launching a sectarian party, building on his overseeing of Labour becoming riddled with racism. Of course I'm gonna criticise them.

Why do you have to call it anything? If I advocate a right wing policy please do feel free to call it that, assuming you can explain why is right wing. Ditto any left wing policy.

But why do you have to assign facts to a political stable? Or even views on problems? Do I have to be a communist if I am concerned by capitalist exploitation? Am I also far left?

I don't think so. I think one is a communist depending on what one proposes in response to that.

Right-winger says what?!

Methink the lady doth protest too much!

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

Right right, only kidding. I'll stop now

As much as I appreciate you going through each and every one of those right-wing talking points and explaining why, when you say them, they're not right-wing talking points, well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thing is of course, a rudimentary google of any and all of them does simply show that the only folk talking about them in the way you describe, at the numbers and intensity you prescribe; and with all of them wrapped up together in a package - well, they are what any layperson would call right-wingers. Right-wing commentariat. Right-wing intelligentsia even? Hmm, lets go more right-wing grifters. You know the type. Dems just the (real) facts amigo.

But look, I'm nothing if not receptive to appeals for less labelling in this world, so I'll take on your feedback eegie. In future when referring to your big heaving bag of not-right-wing-viewpoints, I'll try to use an alternative term.

I'll be honest, not sure what to use just yet, but I've got a fairly free avo at work so will squeeze in some thinking time on it; amongst other stuff I need to do - priority right now is a quick bunch of flowers for the wife. Fucking capitalist Valentines bullshit

 

[paigntonhibby]

I don't vote labour so if that's meant to aimed in my direction it is misplaced [but only by miles].

You posted about what a party leader said and then changed his mind, I merely pointed out he's not the only politician that's done that. Dont know your political stance and don't care to be honest.

 

[Dub]

You posted about what a party leader said and then changed his mind, I merely pointed out he's not the only politician that's done that. Dont know your political stance and don't care to be honest.

No, you said, "Here here, let’s stick with a party who’s leader promised to kick out cronyism" as if I supported labour. To be honest I don't give a fuck whether you care about my polical stance.

 

[egb_hibs]

Right-winger says what?!

Methink the lady doth protest too much!

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

Right right, only kidding. I'll stop now

As much as I appreciate you going through each and every one of those right-wing talking points and explaining why, when you say them, they're not right-wing talking points, well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thing is of course, a rudimentary google of any and all of them does simply show that the only folk talking about them in the way you describe, at the numbers and intensity you prescribe; and with all of them wrapped up together in a package - well, they are what any layperson would call right-wingers. Right-wing commentariat. Right-wing intelligentsia even? Hmm, lets go more right-wing grifters. You know the type. Dems just the (real) facts amigo.

But look, I'm nothing if not receptive to appeals for less labelling in this world, so I'll take on your feedback eegie. In future when referring to your big heaving bag of not-right-wing-viewpoints, I'll try to use an alternative term.

I'll be honest, not sure what to use just yet, but I've got a fairly free avo at work so will squeeze in some thinking time on it; amongst other stuff I need to do - priority right now is a quick bunch of flowers for the wife. Fucking capitalist Valentines bullshit

Whatever KiGers. You can call me what you like. As noted it doesn't change the important thing that calling arguments or plain old facts 'right wing' in the apparent belief that constitutes a counter argument, is moon howling stuff gadgie.

If it is right wing to take a reality based view, sign me up.

 

[paigntonhibby]

No, you said, "Here here, let’s stick with a party who’s leader promised to kick out cronyism" as if I supported labour. To be honest I don't give a fuck whether you care about my polical stance.

Well I don’t care that you don’t care that I don’t care

 

[egb_hibs]

First traces of the post Reform future perhaps appearing as Rupert Lowe launches Restore UK as a party? While by no means a BNP, people associated with them are given to much more radical chat.

The likes of Reform and even Tommy Robinson are the main things shielding Britain from a far right push. When they inevitably fail, we may end up in a really unpleasant tussle between nativism and a rapidly radicalising islamoleft. Indeed it's perhaps the most likely outcome.

Then again, while altogether less likely, there is potential for crossover between the far right and the left as it now is, as we see with Tucker Carlson in the states. Common preoccupations may provide for unlikely opportunities if the marriage to islamists - who are after all way to the 'right' of the far right on everything else - turns sour.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[greencol]

First traces of the post Reform future perhaps appearing as Rupert Lowe launches Restore UK as a party? While by no means a BNP, people associated with them are given to much more radical chat.

The likes of Reform and even Tommy Robinson are the main things shielding Britain from a far right push. When they inevitably fail, we may end up in a really unpleasant tussle between nativism and a rapidly radicalising islamoleft. Indeed it's perhaps the most likely outcome.

Then again, while altogether less likely, there is potential for crossover between the far right and the left as it now is, as we see with Tucker Carlson in the states. Common preoccupations may provide for unlikely opportunities if the marriage to islamists - who are after all way to the 'right' of the far right on everything else - turns sour.

Be careful what you wish for.

I wish someone had corrected 'hear hear' as soon as it was posted!
Maybe Farage says its 'here here', which seems to make it correct for todays scholars.

 

[Two Headed Boy]

I think this push against hybrid working/working from home could be a real shooting themselves in the foot moment for Reform.

The arguments that it harms productivity seems fairly easy to debunk with a quick Google, with the main factors contributing to low productivity in UK businesses being skills shortages, an historic lack of investment in tech and poor management. Whereas hybrid working seems to improve employee retention, job satisfaction and productivity.

I think hybrid working is mistakenly seen as a middle class white collar perk, but it really isn't anymore. If Reform are campaigning on taking away workers abilities to pick up their kids from school from example, how are you appealing to working families?

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

I think this push against hybrid working/working from home could be a real shooting themselves in the foot moment for Reform.

The arguments that it harms productivity seems fairly easy to debunk with a quick Google, with the main factors contributing to low productivity in UK businesses being skills shortages, an historic lack of investment in tech and poor management. Whereas hybrid working seems to improve employee retention, job satisfaction and productivity.

I think hybrid working is mistakenly seen as a middle class white collar perk, but it really isn't anymore. If Reform are campaigning on taking away workers abilities to pick up their kids from school from example, how are you appealing to working families?

But there is a knock on effect from working from home.

Not using public transport affects bus drivers etc.

The take away shops that rely on office workers for their trade.

The pubs where folk would pop in for a pint after work.

The taxi drivers driving folk hame from said pubs.

 

[egb_hibs]

I think this push against hybrid working/working from home could be a real shooting themselves in the foot moment for Reform.

The arguments that it harms productivity seems fairly easy to debunk with a quick Google, with the main factors contributing to low productivity in UK businesses being skills shortages, an historic lack of investment in tech and poor management. Whereas hybrid working seems to improve employee retention, job satisfaction and productivity.

I think hybrid working is mistakenly seen as a middle class white collar perk, but it really isn't anymore. If Reform are campaigning on taking away workers abilities to pick up their kids from school from example, how are you appealing to working families?

I doubt it's going to be a problem for Reform. The 'lanyard class' are unlikely to be a big source of votes for them.

I think wfh is great for middle aged people with a comfortable home and the likes. It's pretty much a disaster beyond that, especially for young people, who already spend too much time in front of screens and now have crucial formative experiences taken away, like in person mentoring, socialisation and teamwork. Then there is the knock on damage such as hollowing out of town centres.

I'm not persuaded on the productivity point either. Certain tasks, undertaken by people who already know each other in the real world, can be done as well and perhaps better wfh. But how do you replenish the underpinning 'social capital' as the workforce turns over? And good luck trying to organise anything complex or design anything innovative. Spiralling public sector productivity is linked I suspect, it having clung to the model more than most.

Don't get me wrong, I vastly prefered wfh myself, but that was for entirely selfish reasons. It's really not good for society and I think even the bean counters who once salivated at reducing real estate costs are now thinking twice.

Moot anyway though as anyone who can work from home in an office type role is getting AI'd shortly. And unlikely to affect Reform negatively

 

[Two Headed Boy]

But there is a knock on effect from working from home.

Not using public transport affects bus drivers etc.

The take away shops that rely on office workers for their trade.

The pubs where folk would pop in for a pint after work.

The taxi drivers driving folk hame from said pubs.

Maybe, but you could anecdotally describe them as knock on effects of car ownership being at an all time high or healthier living too.

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Mind the lassie in Australia who got a compensation claim for tripping up in her house whilst WFH.....​

Redirect Notice

 

[egb_hibs]

Mind the lassie in Australia who got a compensation claim for tripping up in her house whilst WFH.....​

Redirect Notice

In the pre covid days when wfh was not a norm but some really determined folk might get granted it by request, one of the many hoops they would need to go through is getting their home assessed as a safe workplace. Presumably that was because of things like this.

That all went out the window through necessity with Covid, and seems to have stayed there!

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

I would think there will need to be a massive hiring of health and safety officers to go and check everyone who is WFH's houses.

Which in turn leads to who will pay for the safety needed in homes.

Will the worker have to have work carried out to make the working environment safe?

 

[Two Headed Boy]

I doubt it's going to be a problem for Reform. The 'lanyard class' are unlikely to be a big source of votes for them.

As I said, I think making this about class is a lazy assumption. How many families will have one person working in an office and the other in retail or hospitality for example? If they have children, flexibility for the office worker allows a two income household.

I think wfh is great for middle aged people with a comfortable home and the likes. It's pretty much a disaster beyond that, especially for young people, who already spend too much time in front of screens and now have crucial formative experiences taken away, like in person mentoring, socialisation and teamwork. Then there is the knock on damage such as hollowing out of town centres.

Again, I think this is wrong - it's great for young families for the reasons I stated above.

I'm not buying this destruction of the young thing either. I work in a hybrid office. The two days we are in I see the Gen Z members of my team being capable, sociable and easy to work with. On the other hand my wife has a younger brother sixteen years her junior (22) who is a delivery driver, still lives at home, spends most of his free time on his Playstation and phones his mum when there is no milk in the fridge... A lovely kid but fucking hopeless despite heading out to graft with people each day.

I'm not persuaded on the productivity point either. Certain tasks, undertaken by people who already know each other in the real world, can be done as well and perhaps better wfh. But how do you replenish the underpinning 'social capital' as the workforce turns over? And good luck trying to organise anything complex or design anything innovative. Spiralling public sector productivity is linked I suspect, it having clung to the model more than most.

You may not be persuaded but, from what I've seen, it's not what the data suggests.

 

[egb_hibs]

I would think there will need to be a massive hiring of health and safety officers to go and check everyone who is WFH's houses.

Which in turn leads to who will pay for the safety needed in homes.

Will the worker have to have work carried out to make the working environment safe?

That's unlikely to to happen J.

More likely they'll either get the lawyers to make it a staff responsibility, or bin wfh, or offshore the jobs. And they will be first in line for AI too.

 

[Two Headed Boy]

I would think there will need to be a massive hiring of health and safety officers to go and check everyone who is WFH's houses.

Which in turn leads to who will pay for the safety needed in homes.

Will the worker have to have work carried out to make the working environment safe?

From personal experience, it's a 15 minute video HR sent us with ten questions at the end and a pdf certificate saying we're safe to work from home

 

[Archie]

I would think there will need to be a massive hiring of health and safety officers to go and check everyone who is WFH's houses.

Which in turn leads to who will pay for the safety needed in homes.

Will the worker have to have work carried out to make the working environment safe?

If working from home you would have to do a self assessment. That would cover IT kit, desk and workspace. Based on that workplaces would be expected to provide suitable kit as required. But, if you don't fill in your survey accurately or don't follow recommendations then that would invalidate any claim.

The only thing I would add is that I don't think working from home is necessary a universally good thing. For some jobs it's neither here nor there. But for others I think it's better for people to be in the same place.

But the key issue is that there are lots of workers for whom this is not an option, due to the nature of their job. Bin men, doctors, shop staff, social workers and so on. Something the civil service unions would do well to note

 

[Keepitgreen]

I think this push against hybrid working/working from home could be a real shooting themselves in the foot moment for Reform.

The arguments that it harms productivity seems fairly easy to debunk with a quick Google, with the main factors contributing to low productivity in UK businesses being skills shortages, an historic lack of investment in tech and poor management. Whereas hybrid working seems to improve employee retention, job satisfaction and productivity.

I think hybrid working is mistakenly seen as a middle class white collar perk, but it really isn't anymore. If Reform are campaigning on taking away workers abilities to pick up their kids from school from example, how are you appealing to working families?

I think eegie hits on something when he says potential Reform voters are unsympathetic to this, so they're giving zero fucks. Their base actually laps up the thought of fucking people back to the office. Their rank and file are rammed with middle management types who are really missing not being able to micromanage the plebs, stroll around an office doing fuck all and feel important.

WFH massively benefits working mothers (and fathers tbf, but moreso mothers). Being able to drop and pick up bairns from school, get them to appointments etc is priceless, not just financially but getting that extra time with your kids. Output is what should be measured, not bums on seats.

Reform would much rather see wimmin barefoot, chained to the kitchen and pumping out bairns from a young age. They have zero interest in helping women to work - in fact its quite the opposite.

‘Handmaid’s Tale future’: Reform’s Matt Goodwin sparks outcry with fertility comments

Byelection candidate accused of indulging ‘alt right fantasy’ by suggesting women need ‘biological reality’ check

www.theguardian.com

 

[Archie]

I think eegie hits on something when he says potential Reform voters are unsympathetic to this, so they're giving zero fucks. Their base actually laps up the thought of fucking people back to the office. Their rank and file are rammed with middle management types who are really missing not being able to micromanage the plebs, stroll around an office doing fuck all and feel important.

WFH massively benefits working mothers (and fathers tbf, but moreso mothers). Being able to drop and pick up bairns from school, get them to appointments etc is priceless, not just financially but getting that extra time with your kids. Output is what should be measured, not bums on seats.

Reform would much rather see wimmin barefoot, chained to the kitchen and pumping out bairns from a young age. They have zero interest in helping women to work - in fact its quite the opposite.

‘Handmaid’s Tale future’: Reform’s Matt Goodwin sparks outcry with fertility comments

Byelection candidate accused of indulging ‘alt right fantasy’ by suggesting women need ‘biological reality’ check

www.theguardian.com

You raise an interesting point. If people are to have more kids then making it easier to manage that is a good thing. Many workplaces, however, have explicit working from home rules that don't allow it to combined with child care. This largely collapsed during COVID, for obvious reasons. But as principle there is a rationale for it and it surely would impact on productivity. Less of an issue where people can make up time with flexible working, but more challenging where people need to be available at specific times.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Less of an issue where people can make up time with flexible working, but more challenging where people need to be available at specific times.

Of course, like anything each scenario needs judged in its own context.

But where a person can nip away for 30 mins then work that 30 mins back later in the day or on another day, then why not.

We're also talking about eliminating commuting time. Finishing your work at 5pm every day in your home rather than in an office an hour away, for example. Thats personal time back to contribute towards childcare, not employer time.

 

[Jack]

Imagine Reform demanding an end to WFH!

It seems not that long ago Farage and Reform received huge backing from a guy that invested heavily in offices to rent and is losing millions!

Coincidence?

 

[egb_hibs]

As I said, I think making this about class is a lazy assumption. How many families will have one person working in an office and the other in retail or hospitality for example? If they have children, flexibility for the office worker allows a two income household.

Again, I think this is wrong - it's great for young families for the reasons I stated above.

I know, I get it. It's good for some for a bunch of reasons, but it's also bad for a bunch of reasons, including bigger ones like gutting town centres and isolating populations

I'm not buying this destruction of the young thing either. I work in a hybrid office. The two days we are in I see the Gen Z members of my team being capable, sociable and easy to work with. On the other hand my wife has a younger brother sixteen years her junior (22) who is a delivery driver, still lives at home, spends most of his free time on his Playstation and phones his mum when there is no milk in the fridge... A lovely kid but fucking hopeless despite heading out to graft with people each day.

That's a bit of an apples to oranges anecdote. I can give you an anecdote in return: after covid I could and did predict which functions would come back to the office under their own steam and which didn't. You could do likewise I am sure: it's fairly obvious that gregarious sales guys would be back before introverted coders for instance.

But anecdotes are anecdotes - you rightly reference an evidence and fact based approach to this. Well go hit up Google on this point...

You may not be persuaded but, from what I've seen, it's not what the data suggests.

I've set up wfh capabilities, and run the metrics to measure the impact. Though thankfully I don't have to care about it now, I've looked at the third party data too. The data is far from telling the story you describe. It's a mixed bag to say the least.

It is good for certain tasks like coders banging away on their keyboards without interruption. The people designing the systems they are manufacturing though? Not so much.

The same applies more generally. Folk have been federating call centres to home workers for decades for instance, sometimes on a piece work basis. Meanwhile offshored work is a similar dynamic - again the worker ants can be sat at the end of a line. It makes collaboration very difficult, error prone and cumbersome but it's cheaper too.

But the more complex or innovative tasks? Not so much. It can be done, up to a point, and again I've been involved in running projects that way, but it's no context for people learning the ropes. And I don't fancy the chances of those who would like to be involved in those things as their career develops, if they stay wfh.

Wfh is brilliant for the bean counters, it saves a bundle. When you see companies walking back from it they aren't doing so for the good of their health. Public sector gadges can get away with sinking productivity - at least for a bit - but when you see companies ordering folk back, it's because they cannot get away with it.

A degree of hybrid is fine I expect (and I think it would be a great idea to include it in maternity / paternity packages for the reasons you give) , but I don't think it's a coincidence that the UK is right at the top of the chart for people not returning after covid and which also has desperate productivity. And I don't think it's a coincidence that both are most acute in a failing public sector.

AI is going to make this all irrelevant though. If a job is suited to wfh - that is to say, heavily process driven, or more person to computer than person to person, and requiring limited and transactional communication with 'stakeholders', well that is going to be first in the hopper. Actually second : young people's 'graduate roles' are already in it.

And finally, some of the big hitting companies that produce the data on things like wfh to begin with, especially in tech, are themselves being dismantled by AI as we speak!

 

[egb_hibs]

I think eegie hits on something when he says potential Reform voters are unsympathetic to this, so they're giving zero fucks. Their base actually laps up the thought of fucking people back to the office. Their rank and file are rammed with middle management types who are really missing not being able to micromanage the plebs, stroll around an office doing fuck all and feel important.

You were doing so well before lapsing back into fantasy. That is not what voter demographics suggest, at all.

Middle managers are far more likely to signed up to exactly the same corporate bromides with which you enrich our days, certainly if they hope to 'get on'.

WFH massively benefits working mothers (and fathers tbf, but moreso mothers). Being able to drop and pick up bairns from school, get them to appointments etc is priceless, not just financially but getting that extra time with your kids. Output is what should be measured, not bums on seats.

Reform would much rather see wimmin barefoot, chained to the kitchen and pumping out bairns from a young age. They have zero interest in helping women to work - in fact its quite the opposite.

‘Handmaid’s Tale future’: Reform’s Matt Goodwin sparks outcry with fertility comments

Byelection candidate accused of indulging ‘alt right fantasy’ by suggesting women need ‘biological reality’ check

www.theguardian.com

Fucking hell

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Another knock on effect is the closing of city centre offices.

Decorating them was always a good source of income for us.

Working ghosters because the office workers hated having any windows open so we couldn't work through the day.

Doesn't affect me now to be fair as I'm settee lounging.

 

[Keepitgreen]

You were doing so well before lapsing back into fantasy. That is not what voter demographics suggest, at all.

Middle managers are far more likely to signed up to exactly the same corporate bromides with which you enrich our days, certainly if they hope to 'get on'.

Fucking hell

shall I put the mirror down sir?!

 

[egb_hibs]

shall I put the mirror down sir?!

I think you might usefully take a long hard look in it!

 

[Two Headed Boy]

I've set up wfh capabilities, and run the metrics to measure the impact. Though thankfully I don't have to care about it now, I've looked at the third party data too. The data is far from telling the story you describe. It's a mixed bag to say the least.

Is it though? I mean I'm happy to take a look at anything to the contrary, but any evidence that wfh is harming productivity that I've seen generally tends to be surveys of what managers think, rather than actual metrics which tend to lean the other way. More crumbs at the bottom of the bag than a genuine mix, if you'll permit me to labour the metaphor.

A degree of hybrid is fine I expect (and I think it would be a great idea to include it in maternity / paternity packages for the reasons you give).

I'd say this is the way to do it. I've spoken with other line managers in other organisations and there seems to be a consensus that 3/2 hybrid models work. They allow you to interact with your team perfectly well while also allowing them the benefits of a increased work/life balance.

As for AI - let's see. It's undoubtedly going to change the working world the way automation did last century but I'm sure roles will adapt as they did then.