Do you want to discuss boring politics? (18 Viewers)

tisza

Well-Known Member
Sometimes Parliament can surprise you. An extremely intelligent & thoughtful debate on the assisted dying bill atm.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
Well in the US, it failed to uncover any fraud and was just used to fire hundreds of thousands of people.

In this context, the growing research on this is firmly in favour of hybrid working over both pure WFH and office working.
For me 1 day a week is plenty. The benefits of going into the office are lost completely when its a hot desking situation. Usually when I go in im sat nowhere near my team and waste time walking across the office to speak to them.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I can't comment as I don't really know what all the DOGE stuff is over here.

Having somebody sit and watch remote workers screen recordings to see if they are working isn't really efficient management.
DOGE is essentially about removing funding for procedures and projects that are seen as pontless or wasteful of resources to reduce budgets. However I presume BSB sees a point in many expenses I'd find absurd.

Given so many councils are getting into financial trouble I feel there is little alternative to looking closer at what is being bought and whether it represents value for money.

One of the areas they are targeting in the US is some areas of academic research (e.g. for DEI/LGBTQ+ themes and other areas) they are also choppintg funds being spend abroad ( Elon Musk's DOGE slashes India's $21 million 'voter turnout' funding in its recent cut)
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
For me 1 day a week is plenty. The benefits of going into the office are lost completely when its a hot desking situation. Usually when I go in im sat nowhere near my team and waste time walking across the office to speak to them.
The work I do is impossible to do from home, but for jobs where it is, a mix of physically being around your colleagues and home working intuitively seems the right thing to do, and the evidence seems to agree.

The idiots in Kent are doing a very poor Elon Musk tribute act because they have no original ideas. Not least missing the irony that setting up more beauracracy to investigate ‘inefficiency’ is itself an inefficient use of resources.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
It's dinosaur behaviour.

I've started at a place where it's hybrid and a 4 day week. I've never seen so much stuff get done.

The context is that the public sector’s productivity is decline. Most taxpayers definitely feel they can’t talk to a human at HMRC, be it face-to-face or on the phone.

This isn’t a good look and most taxpayers probably feel that they should be in office.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
The context is that the public sector’s productivity is decline. Most taxpayers definitely feel they can’t talk to a human at HMRC, be it face-to-face or on the phone.

This isn’t a good look and most taxpayers probably feel that they should be in office.
If you spoke to a human at HMRC would you really know if they were office based or wfh?
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
The context is that the public sector’s productivity is decline. Most taxpayers definitely feel they can’t talk to a human at HMRC, be it face-to-face or on the phone.

This isn’t a good look and most taxpayers probably feel that they should be in office.

You are aware we’re beyond the technological stage where a phone line was wired into a building I take it?
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I’m against ideological austerity masquerading as ‘efficiency’.
And I am against ideological overspending masqerading as socially necessary and beneficial. 🤭
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
The context is that the public sector’s productivity is decline. Most taxpayers definitely feel they can’t talk to a human at HMRC, be it face-to-face or on the phone.

This isn’t a good look and most taxpayers probably feel that they should be in office.

That's fine - i'm sure the input costs of all that office space and energy to house all these different workers is tremendously efficient
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Remember when you creamed yourself over the council's handling of the Ricoh :ROFLMAO:
I didn't. I merely observed they managed to load all the debt onto Wasps which was what in the end what sunk the stripey bastards.

I think I was very mistaken originally by supporting their involvement in building the arena but you live and learn.

Usually the council makes god awful business decisions I'd rather it kept it's nose out of businesses.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The context is that the public sector’s productivity is decline. Most taxpayers definitely feel they can’t talk to a human at HMRC, be it face-to-face or on the phone.

This isn’t a good look and most taxpayers probably feel that they should be in office.
That's in every function and interaction now I think not just public.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
If you spoke to a human at HMRC would you really know if they were office based or wfh?

Missed the point. It’s all the optics around reduced services, productivity coupled with WFH. It wouldn’t be a problem if people could get through to someone instead of being bounced from automated voicemail to voicemail.

It’s also an easy target for politicians to attack.

That's fine - i'm sure the input costs of all that office space and energy to house all these different workers is tremendously efficient

In many cases, departments still have expensive office spaces. We absorb those costs without people being in the office. So it’s the worst of both worlds.

Simultaneously, the civil service has expanded significantly since COVID so there’s not even enough office space for all workers, 5 days a week.

That's in every function and interaction now I think not just public.

Yes and this isn’t a good thing. The private sector is generally driving more people to the office because that’s what they believe to be most productive.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I've started at a place where it's hybrid and a 4 day week. I've never seen so much stuff get done.
No idea what your thoughts were before you started doing it yourself but I find a lot of people change their mind when they get the chance to try it for themselves. Fair enough I guess as it is counter intuitive that more work gets done in 4 days at home / hybrid than 5 days in the office.

But that's why you need good management, open to new ideas, who can look at the data rather than going off 'vibes'.
Given so many councils are getting into financial trouble I feel there is little alternative to looking closer at what is being bought and whether it represents value for money.
Council's are in financial trouble because they have experienced massive funding cuts while caring costs have gone through the roof. Not because Bob works from home a couple of days a week.

I moved from a job where I was working at home pretty much all the time, apart from occasional visits to client sites. I'm now doing the same job but 5 days a week in the office. My productivity has dropped off a cliff, but when I look at the stats for our company I'm the most productive one there :ROFLMAO:

It also has a big impact on 'work / life balance', although I hate that phrase. I lose about 10 hours a week sat in the car doing nothing. My annual leave is not burnt up doing life admin tasks. I'm off today for a boiler service. Things like doctors, dentist that used to be pop out for 15 - 30 minutes now mean a half day off.

Jobs that I could get done at lunch, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn etc, now fill my weekends. It's surprising how much this makes an impact and before you know it feels like your whole life is revolving around work and you have no time for yourself.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sometimes Parliament can surprise you. An extremely intelligent & thoughtful debate on the assisted dying bill atm.
And then there's Cleverly banging on about how much it might cost

Thought Gordon Brown made a good point the other day. You really need to sort out end of life care if you're going to have a discussion on assisted dying otherwise you risk the options being substandard care or ending your life
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Missed the point. It’s all the optics around reduced services, productivity coupled with WFH. It wouldn’t be a problem if people could get through to someone instead of being bounced from automated voicemail to voicemail.

It’s also an easy target for politicians to attack.



In many cases, departments still have expensive office spaces. We absorb those costs without people being in the office. So it’s the worst of both worlds.

Simultaneously, the civil service has expanded significantly since COVID so there’s not even enough office space for all workers, 5 days a week.



Yes and this isn’t a good thing. The private sector is generally driving more people to the office because that’s what they believe to be most productive.
Who decided to make HMRC digital?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
DOGE is essentially about removing funding for procedures and projects that are seen as pontless or wasteful of resources to reduce budgets. However I presume BSB sees a point in many expenses I'd find absurd.

Given so many councils are getting into financial trouble I feel there is little alternative to looking closer at what is being bought and whether it represents value for money.

One of the areas they are targeting in the US is some areas of academic research (e.g. for DEI/LGBTQ+ themes and other areas) they are also choppintg funds being spend abroad ( Elon Musk's DOGE slashes India's $21 million 'voter turnout' funding in its recent cut)

Are you in the market for a bridge by any chance?
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
And then there's Cleverly banging on about how much it might cost

Thought Gordon Brown made a good point the other day. You really need to sort out end of life care if you're going to have a discussion on assisted dying otherwise you risk the options being substandard care or ending your life
It passed just. Let's hope they get the checks & balances right.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
In many cases, departments still have expensive office spaces. We absorb those costs without people being in the office. So it’s the worst of both worlds.

Simultaneously, the civil service has expanded significantly since COVID so there’s not even enough office space for all workers, 5 days a week.

Yes and this isn’t a good thing. The private sector is generally driving more people to the office because that’s what they believe to be most productive.
Keeping expensive office spaces is the decision of individual companies. And as you say, large office spaces are expensive, both in rent and running costs. There's absolutely no reason businesses can't downsize and the market is increasingly adapting with more serviced offices that allow flexibility. Although Coventry seems very lacking in this area.

The civil service not having enough desk space is a problem entirely of their own making. If some idiot hadn't made a non-evidence based decision that everyone had to come back into the office it would never have become an issue.

It's not a good thing that some in the private sector are forcing people back to the office. First and foremost it's being done in spite of the evidence showing working from home or hybrid working increases productivity, reduces sick days, reduces employee turnover etc etc etc.

So having shot themselves in the foot on productivity they will also find they struggle to recruit & retain staff. People in roles where it is possible want, at worst, hybrid working. Many won't even consider roles that are 5 days a week in the office. My employer is having huge problems with recruitment because people just won't consider it. I work in IT and a recent survey showed over 70% of IT workers would quit if their employer moved to 5 days a week in the office.

So if you want to lower productivity and massively decrease your available talent pool it's a great option.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
It passed just. Let's hope they get the checks & balances right.
Pleased its passed. suspect there will be a lot of scrutiny and suggestions from the Lords but its a step in the right direction.

Personally I think not having anything in there for dementia is a glaring omission. Every relative I speak to at my Dads care home says the same thing 'they wouldn't have wanted to end up like this'.

I think anyone who has been through dementia with a family member would struggle to give you any positives in keeping someone alive past a certain point. Sure a lot of people don't realise, as I didn't prior to experiencing it with my Dad, how much distress people with dementia are often in.

My Dad is into year 3. He can't hear, can't see, doesn't understand where he is, doesn't recognise any family members and is bed bound. His quality of life is below zero, you really reach a point where you start asking who this is benefiting.
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
also worth calling out that talent that wants hybrid working is heading to places that offer it, so if you want efficiency, accept the market trend and adapt to it so you get better talent.

basically it's a 'markets know best... just not like that!' vibe from folks who's thinking isn't empirical and is stuck in the 80s. Tying themselves in knots to get votes / clicks (same thing now tbf).
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Pleased its passed. suspect there will be a lot of scrutiny and suggestions from the Lords but its a step in the right direction.

Personally I think not having anything in there for dementia is a glaring omission. Every relative I speak to at my Dads care home says the same thing 'they wouldn't have wanted to end up like this'.

I think anyone who has been through dementia with a family member would struggle to give you any positives in keeping someone alive past a certain point. Sure a lot of people don't realise, as I didn't prior to experiencing it with my Dad, how much distress people with dementia are often in.

My Dad is into year 3. He can't hear, can't see, doesn't understand where he is, doesn't recognise any family members and is bed bound. His quality of life is below zero, you really reach a point where you start asking who this is benefiting.
I agree. The qualifying criteria wouldn't cover dementia sufferers unless they are suffering from some other life limiting condition.

I think you should be able to make a declarative statement about wishing to end your life if you are diagnosed with dementia. It is not caring to keep people alive for them, their carers and families to suffer day in day out.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
That's in every function and interaction now I think not just public.
Was at the O2 earlier this week. They've closed a decent number of the bars and replace them with unstaffed self service units.

A camera monitors what you take out of the fridge or pour from the self service machines and charges you accordingly.

Almost comically the only member of staff is someone on the exit to make sure you don't commit the heinous crime of keeping your bottle top.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
also worth calling out that talent that wants hybrid working is heading to places that offer it, so if you want efficiency, accept the market trend and adapt to it so you get better talent.

basically it's a 'markets know best... just not like that!' vibe from folks who's thinking isn't empirical and is stuck in the 80s. Tying themselves in knots to get votes / clicks (same thing now tbf).

Mucca is in the camp of both believing that public spending is far too high but somehow spending more money on accommodation is efficient
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Pleased its passed. suspect there will be a lot of scrutiny and suggestions from the Lords but its a step in the right direction.

Personally I think not having anything in there for dementia is a glaring omission. Every relative I speak to at my Dads care home says the same thing 'they wouldn't have wanted to end up like this'.

I think anyone who has been through dementia with a family member would struggle to give you any positives in keeping someone alive past a certain point. Sure a lot of people don't realise, as I didn't prior to experiencing it with my Dad, how much distress people with dementia are often in.

My Dad is into year 3. He can't hear, can't see, doesn't understand where he is, doesn't recognise any family members and is bed bound. His quality of life is below zero, you really reach a point where you start asking who this is benefiting.
Lost my dad to a combination of dementia and cancer. "Lucky" his end came very quickly from when he was admitted to hospital for the last time. My father-in-law went to dementia and would not wish his last 2/3 months in hospital on anybody. While he was still coherent he was begging us to bring him home to die. Was basically catatonic last 2 months of his life and his death was actually a relief for all.
Grandfather went to brain cancer. Again another dreadful last 2/months of being near catatonic.
I'm in favour with the right controls. Also I don't think it's right that some can take the option if they have the money to go the Dignitas route whilst others have to suffer because they can't afford it. But I'd make sure medical staff had the option to opt out if they had moral or religious objections.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Lost my dad to a combination of dementia and cancer. "Lucky" his end came very quickly from when he was admitted to hospital for the last time. My father-in-law went to dementia and would not wish his last 2/3 months in hospital on anybody. While he was still coherent he was begging us to bring him home to die. Was basically catatonic last 2 months of his life and his death was actually a relief for all.
Grandfather went to brain cancer. Again another dreadful last 2/months of being near catatonic.
I'm in favour with the right controls. Also I don't think it's right that some can take the option if they have the money to go the Dignitas route whilst others have to suffer because they can't afford it. But I'd make sure medical staff had the option to opt out if they had moral or religious objections.
Its heartbreaking and I genuinely think the majority of people who are against giving people the option of another way out haven't been through it with a family member.

I had similar to you, the last three times in his life that I saw my Dad in any way coherent he was asking me to help him jump out of the window to kill himself.

As a nation we can't afford to provide good quality care for the number of people who need it, we can't recruit the number of staff needed to provide a basic level of care, families are being put through touture for months or years, surviving relatives end up in debt. Who is this benefitting? As far as I can see it's only the private companies operating in the care sector.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Keeping expensive office spaces is the decision of individual companies. And as you say, large office spaces are expensive, both in rent and running costs. There's absolutely no reason businesses can't downsize and the market is increasingly adapting with more serviced offices that allow flexibility. Although Coventry seems very lacking in this area.

The civil service not having enough desk space is a problem entirely of their own making. If some idiot hadn't made a non-evidence based decision that everyone had to come back into the office it would never have become an issue.

It's not a good thing that some in the private sector are forcing people back to the office. First and foremost it's being done in spite of the evidence showing working from home or hybrid working increases productivity, reduces sick days, reduces employee turnover etc etc etc.

So having shot themselves in the foot on productivity they will also find they struggle to recruit & retain staff. People in roles where it is possible want, at worst, hybrid working. Many won't even consider roles that are 5 days a week in the office. My employer is having huge problems with recruitment because people just won't consider it. I work in IT and a recent survey showed over 70% of IT workers would quit if their employer moved to 5 days a week in the office.

So if you want to lower productivity and massively decrease your available talent pool it's a great option.

There’s clearly a balance to be struck which is why most workplaces does a hybrid go 3:2. I don’t disagree with much of this and 5 office days a week for me wouldn’t be practical.

In relation to the civil service, the specific issue here is that the public sector productivity is declining. In fact, it’s still 4.6% below pandemic levels in the medium term (and remains below 1997 levels). Labour argued that public sector pay rises would boost lagging productivity and so far, this hasn’t done anything. That’s without considering we’ve added 600k workers to the public sector.

The ramifications of this is that the state is going to continually raising spending for the same output. Which begets tax raises that will fall predominantly on the private sector and workers in that sector.

So yeah, public sector worker productivity absolutely need to be scrutinised much more closer than in the private sector. That’s just a reality.

Why? If an unproductive private business becomes uncompetitive and fails… the cost doesn’t fall on us directly.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Its heartbreaking and I genuinely think the majority of people who are against giving people the option of another way out haven't been through it with a family member.

I had similar to you, the last three times in his life that I saw my Dad in any way coherent he was asking me to help him jump out of the window to kill himself.

As a nation we can't afford to provide good quality care for the number of people who need it, we can't recruit the number of staff needed to provide a basic level of care, families are being put through touture for months or years, surviving relatives end up in debt. Who is this benefitting? As far as I can see it's only the private companies operating in the care sector.
My nan suffered with dementia for a few years. Although she didn't really seem to understand what was going on, and by the end didn't even speak, she seemed cheerful and often had a smile on her face which gave some comfort that she seemed happy enough.

Until one day I was sitting alone in the room with her and out of nowhere she said my name, which shocked me as she barely said anything by this stage and although she seemed to recognise people she knew she didn't know exactly who they were.

I turned to her in surprise and she had this uncharacteristic serious look on her face and her next three words have haunted me since - "I do know." And that was it, she was gone again. The smile and the aimless looking around came back and I couldn't ask her to explain what she meant. Most of the family find it hard to believe it happened but thankfully know me well enough to know I don't make stuff up.

I've now spent all the time since wondering if the entire time she was ill she was silently suffering inside her own head.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Top