Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

You can tell the government's ears are being chewed off by a bunch of business rental lobbyists because while we still have something like a thousand new cases a day, a TV and online campaign will start from next week to encourage people to abandon home working and return to the office. It will highlight how great it is to be among your colleagues, but also the "fact" that you are more likely to be fired if you work remotely.

A comment in the Guardian sums up my take on it nicely I think:

Sorry Grant but working from home is the future. So many jobs lend themselves to this type of working environment.

Think about it, the savings in public transport costs, imagine saving two hundred quid a month..?! Monthly travel cards covering the majority of zones in London are incredibly expensive.

There will be a marked decrease in air pollution as those who would normally travel by car would no longer do so.

Small businesses in residential areas will benefit from people who work from home and a reduction in transport costs will mean that surplus money will in all likelihood be spent locally.

There will be improvements in quality of life too with less traffic, less noise and the end of the misery of commuting - and commuting in London is a bloody misery. Commuting for those who have to will improve with fewer people on any given mode of public transport.

A bold Government; that is, a government with real ambitions to govern for all and far sighted enough to see opportunities and not predicating its decisions on the demands of lobbyists should be looking at a new future. This means involving every interested group that there is in planning a new future for our city and town centres, creating a transport system that isn't dominated by car pollution but walking and cycling.

A real challenge in other words but that's your job as a government, to face such challenges. I believe there is opportunity here and trying to encourage (force...!) people back to work is retrograde. Working remotely is here to stay en masse and we have to deal with this new reality.

[Josquius]

Two thoughts. Electing a fairly centrist if uninspiring liberal makes more sense to me than Layla Moran's approach which would basically have had the Lib Dems fighting the Greens for Labour's scraps - especially given the profile of Lib Dem constituencies (posh urban areas and some very large, slightly eccentric rural areas). Also for a party that's polling 6% turnout, they still have about 120,000 members which is really impressive (Tories have about 190,000, Labour just over 500,000).

Logically yes. The Lib Dems should be taking advantage of the Tories lurch to insanity to try and hoover up the centre right.
...but we saw how well that went in the last election. The right are by nature just so much less fractious and dedicated to voting tory come what may.

Given the Lib Dems last period of major success came as the left wing choice vs. new labour, and the number of idiots screaming about starmer being a tory, you can see why they might be tempted to old habits.
But the Greens are really a growing force...the results don't show it in the UK yet but in democratic countries it really does. As I've mentioned before the Swiss Greens absolutely shattered the Swiss system last election for instance.

[Tamas]

Another comment I agree with because I am too lazy to type my own thoughts:

Schnapps and co (or whatever his name is today) don't get it.

Sometimes there's a major dislocation in society, caused by war, or disease, or innovation.

The Black Death killed about 25% of the population in Europe in the late 14th century, and surviving workers were suddenly more valuable.

Railways killed off stagecoaches, and made inns with stables obsolete.

The internal combustion engine did even more damage to horse-breeding.

Right now we've got innovation and disease colliding to make another big dislocation.

As yet we can't predict the outcome.

But it's obvious that anyone whose work is entirely screen-based can usually work at home, with a bit of help with the essential resources.

I had to deal with a car insurance company during the lockdown - phone calls handled from home by their staff.

I've had an online chat with an agent for a car company, and the agent is working from home.

In both cases the service was excellent and the individuals seemed relaxed.

And this saves workers money - no season tickets etc.

The virus has simply accelerated what was inevitable.

City business districts are going to fade away - so city and town centres have to be repurposed as residential areas with the services that people need near their homes.

[garbon]

It does seem rather tone deaf. And of course, highly educated/highly skilled employees aren't all that eager to get back into the office.

[Josquius]

Sounds kind of close to your hate for high streets. Completely neglects that we aren't talking about a light switch here.
The name of the game isn't stopping natural transitions. Its controlling them to be as harmless as possible.

Also have to find disagreement with some of its brexity sounding statements, believing reduced workers will naturally lead to increased wages...nope.

[Sheilbh]

You can tell the government's ears are being chewed off by a bunch of business rental lobbyists because while we still have something like a thousand new cases a day, a TV and online campaign will start from next week to encourage people to abandon home working and return to the office. It will highlight how great it is to be among your colleagues, but also the "fact" that you are more likely to be fired if you work remotely.

A comment in the Guardian sums up my take on it nicely I think:

.....ish. (Also wouldn't places still be paying their rent generally even if they're not actually using their premises?)

More people are now back at work (43%) than wfh (39%) - and this has a huge class angle:


So when we're talking about wfh as the future, or how good it is now - what we're really talking about is experience of professionals and ICT workers. Given our economy - that's a lot of people. It's insane to say get back to the office or get fired. But that scale of wfh causes problems/pain elsewhere. The two things that most strike me are: there will be job losses in lower paid jobs from the entire economy that supports business districts and there's a class and age element within those wfh sectors. This is okay for me - I rent a flat for myself, 18 months ago I was in a flatshare and this would have been a bit of a nightmare.

There might be a long-term transition so jobs move from the business district to suburbs for example as people are spending money (and there's already indications of this) in their local area. But I don't think that's going to be like a switch we can flick - there'll be pain as people lose their jobs or get asked to commute so they can work in a branch in Croydon not Soho. And I think people like me and the professional/ICT sector generally probably need to be made to bear some of that pain so it's fair. It's not just a case of "wfh is great and it's the future for everyone - yaaaaaaaaay!" and actually if you're in a sector that has already gone back to work or never stopped working on-site, that may look like a lot of gloating from a lot of people who very often earn a lot more.

I don't disagree with some of that person's comments but a "government that governs for all" needs to not just focus on the 39% who are wfh or small businesses on the Didsbury high street. As I say I think making people go back to work is crazy right now (especially as schools are reopening). But we need to think more about how to distribute the pain fairly, rather than imagining we'll smoothly move into pollution free elysian fields filled with frolicking freelancers.

[Tamas]

Sounds kind of close to your hate for high streets. Completely neglects that we aren't talking about a light switch here.
The name of the game isn't stopping natural transitions. Its controlling them to be as harmless as possible.

Also have to find disagreement with some of its brexity sounding statements, believing reduced workers will naturally lead to increased wages...nope.

Home working is an EXTREMELY pro-high street approach. If there's anything that can salvage local communities is people actually physically staying in those local communities during weekdays as opposed to force to commute for hours.

As one of those comments points out, such changes happen all the time. The government's efforts and the taxpayers' money could be much better spent trying to adopt and encourage the new reality (which was on its way, except instead of 50 years it is going to play out in 5 thanks to the pandemic), instead of rigidly fighting to restore the old one, just because the party donors invested millions into office buildings. They can still turn those into residential buildings and make good money.

[Tamas]

But we need to think more about how to distribute the pain fairly, rather than imagining we'll smoothly move into pollution free elysian fields filled with frolicking freelancers.

Well yes exactly. But trying to will the pre-pandemic world back into existence just because that seems like the least amount of work required is not only not helping, but is actively harming.

[garbon]

Sounds kind of close to your hate for high streets. Completely neglects that we aren't talking about a light switch here.
The name of the game isn't stopping natural transitions. Its controlling them to be as harmless as possible.

Also have to find disagreement with some of its brexity sounding statements, believing reduced workers will naturally lead to increased wages...nope.

Home working is an EXTREMELY pro-high street approach. If there's anything that can salvage local communities is people actually physically staying in those local communities during weekdays as opposed to force to commute for hours.

[Sheilbh]

But we need to think more about how to distribute the pain fairly, rather than imagining we'll smoothly move into pollution free elysian fields filled with frolicking freelancers.

Well yes exactly. But trying to will the pre-pandemic world back into existence just because that seems like the least amount of work required is not only not helping, but is actively harming.

Sure but as I say there is a big chunk of workers who have gone back to the pre-pandemic world, there's a fairly big chunk who never stopped. And I think when people describe the wfh future to a large extent it is as distant and difficult to get to as the pre-pandemic world. It will take lots of choices and decisions, it won't just happen.

For example people could move to suburbs or out of London (on London wages). This is possible - but to be honest who is really going to look to move house now? I mean I think that feels just a little risky because there's so much uncertainty.

Similarly local high streets do well that's probably going to change working and living patterns for the lower paid workers who are employed there. So for example Didsbury, which is a lovely commuter town in South Manchester, isn't going to get any cheaper - so it's not going to suddenly be affordable for all the extra people who'll be needed to work on a more robust high street. So those people may have to travel not just to but through Central Manchester. I slightly worry we'll just end up displacing professional and ICT staff's commute onto lower paid people who basically have to do their own commute plus trip to lovely little village.

Home working is an EXTREMELY pro-high street approach. If there's anything that can salvage local communities is people actually physically staying in those local communities during weekdays as opposed to force to commute for hours.

Assuming the local community is made up of the 39% of higher paid professionals and ICT workers, who are less likely to be having declining high streets anyway.

Edit: And also UK workers have been slower to return to work and have returned at a lower rate than the rest of Europe. I'm not sure how much of this just reflects the strong services sector though.

[Tamas]

I think a mistake is often being made of mixing the short term (the pandemic and having to deal with it) with the long term.

There are different considerations but the necessary short term arrangements have unveiled a much more efficient and different long term way of working that will become the normal simply on account of being more efficient to private business.

And of course not all jobs, not even the majority of jobs can be made from home. But I don't understand the relevance of this. Nobody is proposing to try and somehow force factory operators or delivery people etc to work from home.

There is a minority of workers who not only can't work from home but their present job is likely to be lost if people stay home, but the notion that all other segments of society should discard all modern advantages so this small minority of people are not forced to look for a new job (of which there'll be plenty) is utterly unrealistic and naive. Especially as we are largely talking about people in the service industry doing low paid jobs in the centre of London where they couldn't really afford to live anyways. People won't be consuming less, they'll be consuming differently, mainly in a geographical sense. As one of the comments put it, if we survived the collapse of the horse breeding and horse carriage industry, we are sure to survive the relocation of Costa barristas to small town centres. 

[The Larch]

What's ICT workers? 

[Sheilbh]

What's ICT workers? 

Information and communications technology.

I think a mistake is often being made of mixing the short term (the pandemic and having to deal with it) with the long term.

Yes - especially now. France has over 6,000 cases a day at the minute and the number 1 driver is offices.

There is a minority of workers who not only can't work from home but their present job is likely to be lost if people stay home, but the notion that all other segments of society should discard all modern advantages so this small minority of people are not forced to look for a new job (of which there'll be plenty) is utterly unrealistic and naive. Especially as we are largely talking about people in the service industry doing low paid jobs in the centre of London where they couldn't really afford to live anyways. People won't be consuming less, they'll be consuming differently, mainly in a geographical sense. As one of the comments put it, if we survived the collapse of the horse breeding and horse carriage industry, we are sure to survive the relocation of Costa barristas to small town centres. 

Yeah because there's nothing in recent British experience that might warn against just leaning into and accelerating technological changes at the cost of millions of jobs. These were arguments made about manufacturing, shipbuilding, coal-mining etc and the Thatcher government really agreed with them. There are facts of the market and technology and government's role isn't to pick win and losers, it's to make it easier for business so you get the creative side of creative destruction. And as we've seen that had absolutely zero consequences

I think there's some businesses that would always struggle - I think Pret and fast dining places have basically carpeted city centres in a really unsustainable way - but our economy has a huge chunk of service workers and workers who support services used by those service workers. I could be wrong but I'd guess that a shift there would probably cost more jobs than Thatcher - you know retail and hospitality employe 7.5 million people. I'm not confident how much relocation there'll be or how quick that'll happen. I agree there's big changes that are sort of inevitable (and I'm not sure if Tory donors are more likely to be running businesses renting properties, or running businesses that are able to reduce their cost base), but I think it's fair to try and slow-pedal them and do it in a deliberate, purposeful way, especially given that over 10% of the British population work in the worst hit sectors.

As I say I think there's a big class issue here and it's about the jobs and workers that we value - I'm not entirely surprised to see the Guardian comments section, wfh obvs, being broadly blind to their own class loyalty and sympathies.

Separately I do think this also shows the importance of the arts and cultural sector in city centre vibrancy and other bits of economic life because that's the other big missing bit of the jigsaw. I might go and see Tenet in a big cinema, but I see people who work in Soho (where I used to work at a cafe/bar) posting pictures of how empty everything is. Part of that is international tourism, but I wonder if we also underestimate even in the official statistics how important cultural and arts venues are (theatres, cinemas, museums, galleries etc). And personally I can't wait to the point where I feel comfortable going back to the theatre or cinema

[Sheilbh]

One for me and Tyr - I'm not convinced this is a bad idea

Scrapping 213 local councils could save £3bn says report
    9 hours ago

Abolishing 213 smaller councils in England and replacing them with 25 new local authorities could save almost £3bn over five years, a report says.

The report for the County Councils Network says one body in each area would reduce complexity and give communities a single unified voice.

However, others argue bigger councils are unwieldy and undemocratic.

The government is expected to publish its own proposals on overhauling local government in the autumn.

Plans could include scrapping district and county councils in England in favour of fewer, larger authorities which control all services in their area.

County councils, including Surrey, North Yorkshire and Leicestershire, have developed or are already developing plans to replace county and district councils in their area with a single body.

In most of England, local government operates under a two-tier system, with both a county council and a district council providing services.

County councils' responsibilities include education, social services and waste disposal.

Each county is subdivided into areas represented by district councils. These councils are responsible for rubbish collection, housing and planning.

Some parts of the country - usually cities or larger towns - are governed by unitary authorities which provide all local government services.

The report carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argues that merging district and county councils in a mid-sized county area into single organisation could save £126m over five years and £2.94bn nationally.

However it also warns that creating two unitary authorities in one county would reduce the savings by two thirds.

Cllr David Williams, chairman of the County Councils Network, who commissioned the report, said there was a "compelling" financial case for creating more unitary authorities.

Speaking to the BBC, he said that in his county of Hertfordshire there are 11 local authorities. "That means there are 11 chief executives, 526 councillors, 10 planning teams - so there is an awful lot of complexity, and there is a lot of cost."

The network also noted "speculation" that the government could set a population limit of 600,000 people for each unitary authority and argued that "splitting historic counties" would produce "a worse deal for local taxpayers".

It also suggested that establishing more than one unitary authority in a county would mean splitting up children's social services and adult social care departments, risking instability.

Some council leaders strongly oppose plans to abolish smaller councils.

Sharon Taylor, Labour leader of Stevenage Council, told the BBC her local county Hertfordshire, with its population of around 1.3 million, is "just too big" to be represented by one single council.

"That is centralising local services which seems entirely wrong," she said, adding that Britain has the "least representation at local level of anywhere in Europe already".

"That real democratic voice that people have at local level is really important to them," she said.

Analysis
by Alex Forsyth
Political correspondent
Local government reform is no easy task.

While the leaders of larger county councils are advocating a shift to unitary authorities, several smaller district council leaders are opposed to the idea.

This includes Conservative council leaders, which could prove to be a political headache for government.

Despite that, ministers have signalled that they're likely to advocate fewer, larger authorities - and possibly more elected mayors - when they publish a paper on devolving power in the autumn.

Giving councils more clout to make decisions on behalf of their local areas is, the government says, part of its attempt to 'level up the country'.

But beyond any argument about reforming structures sits the question of finance. Councils in England have long argued budgets are so stretched that some services may become unsustainable.

The government has made more money available during the Covid pandemic and says it's given councils more spending power.

But for social care services in particular the pressure is acute, and how to reform - and fund - that struggling sector still seems far from settled.

[Josquius]

I remember back at the time of the disastrous North East Devolution referendum we had another referendum at the same time about whether to disband Durham's district councils.
Like the devolution referendum, it was shit, and the no side won.... but on this they decided to do it anyway.
I suspect it might have played a part in the building of distrust and paranoia about the obviously uber corrupt county council (what is it with these people and 'corruption'?) but haven't been around paying attention much to comment on the quality of service around it.

Certainly in other countries where things tend to be ran on a municipal level the trend as we approach modern times has been for more and more mergers. Pride seems to be about the only thing lost. And odd exceptions as they usually make it to municipalities to decide.

I guess I'd be tentatively for this. Though really we should be bringing back metropolitan counties. That system seems the best way to go, with very limited services on a ultra local level and overall stuff being handled on a broader regional level.