Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Who would have thought so. 

Btw, I said courts in my post but it is actually coming from a law regulating WFH that was approved last year and that specifically doesn't cover Covid related WFH. Even though, companies during Covid were still required to provide their employees with the necessary material to WFH over here.

It's not so different here. You can claim costs for a lot of WFH stuff (and have been able to since 2003) - and it's (up to a limit) tax free for the company. It's not very common to actually claim it though.

But it's more common to get work to pay for equipment and that sort of thing. During covid my company made everyone do an online workplace assesssment with occupational health - they definitely paid for desks, office chairs, screens etc. I haven't expensed anything like that but in large part that's because I'd paid for everything and set it up before I started WFH, so it would feel dishonest to claim it back (similarly I don't have the heating on during the day and never have so I wouldn't claim that). But if I was to upgrade my internet mainly for work, or buy a new office chair I'd definitely look into claiming that back.

What do people on the board do when there is a piece of kit that is used for both work and private life?

I don't work    but my wife does and she pays for such things out of her own pocket, even though her phone, broadband bill, zoom/teams hardware etc etc are essential for work post covid.

I'm the wrong person to ask because I am possibly a little bit overly cautious about this and I basically never let the my professional and private devices cross paths. But if it's genuinely dual use and you use it for legit business purposes I'd look at claiming it, or at least looking at if I can tax deduct it.

I think there is a slightly bigger issue in our politics of the extent to which MPs (and civil servants) use professional and personal devices. Apparently there is very, very little training even for ministers on this stuff

Are British MPs given any gear by Parliament for their work? I just checked and Spanish MPs are given a "tech kit" consisting on an iPad, an iPhone and a home internet high speed connection. When they leave parliament they can either give them back or buy them.

It's similar here - there's basically a scheme for new MPs to get IT kit (at a discount) through Parliament and a list of what they can choose or they can get a standard default kit (standard laptop bundle, iPad - plus optional desktop and printer bundles - which is deducted from the loan). So you can get the standard Parliament kit or you can basically get a refund (up to a cap) for other IT kit.

Interestingly it looks like they don't get a phone - which I think is essential.

The stuff they get through that scheme or the default equipment are on loan from Parliament and have to be returned either at the end of the 5 year parliamentary session, or when they replace it (which they can't do in the last 6 months of the session). But they can replace it as part of their expenses. It's part of the general office cost expenses (which can go up to about £30k per year - and includes rent) so they need to submit an expenses claim to the indpendent regulator who then signs it off if they think it's a legit claim.

[Sheilbh]

I've now moved to actually angry at this line of attack by Labour

Mainly because their press release today flags that "the Foreign office spent £29,873 on Posturite chairs (for posture). And £10,692 of this hefty sum was spent just in March 2021." Look at the claims and they're overwhelmingly "workplace adjustment" which means following a workplace assessment a department is making reasonable adjustments under the Disability Act for workers with disabilities or health problems.

This is such a bullshit attack. Not only is it petty, and opens you up to charges of hypocrisy - but a lot of this spending seems to be for and by civil servants to have a decent workplace. Civil servants don't get paid much compared to equivalent roles/levels in the private sector - they used to be paid more in comparison to average wages. The way the UK keeps trying to attract people is generally by having best in class perks and a good working environment. I don't have an issue with the UK government spending money making reasonable adjustments for disabled workers or workers with health conditions, or with civil servants having an away day making ceramics.

It feels that now both sides politically are wanting to bear down on wages and perks and make it a shit place to work. No doubt they'll then complain about the civil service not delivering. Really not keen on the Labour idea of an "Office for Value for Money" if this is the sort of thing they care about

This whole line of attack is indicative of problems in our politics. I know Emily Thornberry got some joy out of this line of attack on Truss when she was shadowing her but I think this is really poor. I mean even this - because no other organisation ever has a bulk order at the end of the financial year but it's part of "lavish spending" and the Tories "living a life of luxury" according to Rayner

Labour Press
@labourpress
🖋 Which minister's department spent £59,155 buying stationery at Banner from 22 February to 2 April 2021?
 
Despite only spending £1,470 at the same company for the other 325 days of the year?
 
🚀 You'll see spending rocket in March in ➡️ http://thegpcfiles.com ⬅️

The Department of Health, by the way, employs over 10,000 civil servants.

[Tamas]

I am not sure it won't work. It's human-scale stuff, unlike all the money syphoned to chums via PPE and such.   

[Josquius]

It's a painful line of attack for sure...

But I guess to consider is whether it'll work politically. Sensible people already know the tories are scum and need taking out. That labour have went down to their level isn't going to make anyone suddenly vote tory.
As brexit shows populist half truths can score well.

[The Larch]

"Office for Value for Money"

Did they consider some alternative names, like "Office for penny pinching", or "Office for tight fistedness"? 

[Sheilbh]

Did they consider some alternative names, like "Office for penny pinching", or "Office for tight fistedness"? 

Towards the end of Labour's last time in office there were very regular re-shuffles and also re-organisations. It's one of the few good things about Cameron was that he generally didn't like re-shuffles and thought it was better if ministers stayed in post for several years, and he didn't like weirdly named organisations so the Department for Children, Schools and Families became the Department for Education.

It feels like we're back in 2009 with Sunak's latest re-shuffle (on the 20th housing minister since 2000, I think) such as the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Sadly it seems like Labour intend to pick up where Gordon Brown left off I think Blair at one point even thought of setting up an Office for the People's Priorities which thankfully didn't happen (though I think there's something similar in Sunak's Number 10)

I am not sure it won't work. It's human-scale stuff, unlike all the money syphoned to chums via PPE and such. 

I can't see any sign anywhere that it's working. It's getting mocked on social media, it led the Guardian front page for about half a day and most of the day yesterday was spent covering charges of Labour hypocrisy.

It's not an attack that's worked mainly because people aren't stupid and can see through it as we all have. It also links to something that I think comes up a lot with this sort of attack but also when the Tories go after WFH or "wokeness" in the workplace which is that it really shows how many politicians only really have any working experience in the public sector, in politics. Because I think anyone in an office job, for example, knows about occupational health and workplace assessments or is used to WFH or has seen their company put up posters for Black History Month or Pride Month. It flags just how alien some politicians are in their imagination of what the private sector looks like compared to reality.

[Sheilbh]

(From misc video games): Basically I think both Beeb and Jos are right

It's not invented by hate groups but happened because of a consultation and proposed reform by May's government (which she still backs - it's split right and left in unpredictable ways). It has genuinely divided left wing and feminist groups and prompted real reaction.

But the gender critical feminist position now is not just against May's reforms but would basically unravel the situation for trans people in the UK since 2004.

On the prisoners point it varies year by year. With that issue following the Isla Bryson case we've had the rather weird position of the UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity supporting the Scottish legislation; while the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said it endangers the safety of women. I don't know why they're both commenting on a devolved administration but it's an indication of the challenge of balancing rights by people who are, I think, acting in good faith and not representing hate groups. The legislation I think would only have an indirect effect on that case (but it would have one) because equalities law is really complicated.

Polls show people support the principle of changing the law to make life easier for trans people. They also show that people oppose every specific proposal in May's (and Scotland's) reforms. And I have a general sense that people think a trans person basically means someone who's had gender reassignment surgery (basically we're talking about Jan Morris) which is wrong and never been the position legally.

But I thought probably better to post all of this here video game thread can be a bit more game-y

[The Brain]

I'm confused. Is this real or is it a game?

[Admiral Yi]

On the prisoners point it varies year by year. With that issue following the Isla Bryson case we've had the rather weird position of the UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity supporting the Scottish legislation; while the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has said it endangers the safety of women. I don't know why they're both commenting on a devolved administration but it's an indication of the challenge of balancing rights by people who are, I think, acting in good faith and not representing hate groups.

Took me some searching to figure out what the hell you were talking about.

I wonder if the UN special person has a formal methodology to decide if people are haters or acting in good faith.  That's what I've been arguing for, an objective standard.

[Sheilbh]

As I say I find it slightly mad that two UN figures are commenting on a devolved matter, but there we are.

I just think it was striking that they're representing the same organisation in theory but have different emphases and come out on different sides - which I think indicates that it is about balancing rights which is not straightforward (and may change over time).

I don't personally think UN in your title necessarily means anything - and my default assumption is that everyone is operating in good faith and trying to do what they think is right.

[Admiral Yi]

As I say I find it slightly mad that two UN figures are commenting on a devolved matter, but there we are.

I just think it was striking that they're representing the same organisation in theory but have different emphases and come out on different sides - which I think indicates that it is about balancing rights which is not straightforward (and may change over time).

I don't personally think UN in your title necessarily means anything - and my default assumption is that everyone is operating in good faith and trying to do what they think is right.

Post something I can disagree with you wanker. 

[celedhring]

As I say I find it slightly mad that two UN figures are commenting on a devolved matter, but there we are.

No, that's straight from pro-indy government playbook.

1) Pass progressive "pie-in-the-sky" legislation on something that's not devolved, which means it's going to be blocked by the central government.
2) Use carefully cultivated contacts to get international orgs to back your legislation (also domestic NGOs).
3) "See? We would be so much better if we were independent".

Of course, over here they seem to have got mixed messaging. But the Catalan government has done this a zillion times.

[Sheilbh]

Nicola Sturgeon is resigning as First Minister

[HVC]

Nicola Sturgeon is resigning as First Minister

Wonder how many AirPods she bought.

[Gups]

Nicola Sturgeon is resigning as First Minister

Surprised but not shocked. She'd run out of road on the referendum and her tactics have been pretty poor. Completely cloth eared on the trans issue as well.