The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[Mozzavfc]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Maybe I'm an idealistic moron but for me, I've always thought that a 

Mon-Tue

Wednesday off

Thurs-Fri

Weekend off

Model could work. Less days to do your work leading to higher productivity and a break in the middle to recover.

I'd always imagined an A/B type approach where some people work Monday to Thursday and others Tuesday to Friday

No point having the extra day off if doctors/deliveries/etc don't work the same as weekends

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Maybe I'm an idealistic moron but for me, I've always thought that a 

Mon-Tue

Wednesday off

Thurs-Fri

Weekend off

Model could work. Less days to do your work leading to higher productivity and a break in the middle to recover.

Add in an hour and a half for lunch and you might as well apply for French Citizenship not Polish 

[StefanAVFC]

19 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

So could I, but I'm not convinced all jobs could.

Whenever I've watched programs showing the inner workings of factories (obsessed with that shite) the people seem to be moving rapidly at a speed dictated by the conveyor belt and I can't see how they could do more in fewer days.

Manufacturing companies often run 24/7 these days so the 5 day working week has no impact.

[Sam-AVFC]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Manufacturing companies often run 24/7 these days so the 5 day working week has no impact.

My point was about individuals being able to do more in 4 days than 5 in these types of jobs, as opposed to loss of operational days for the company.

Some good points have been made about automation though. A lot of the jobs that I think would struggle with a 4 day week are likely to be automated so, depending on the timelines this will happen in various industries, I suppose it might not be an inconceivable thing to target achieving in a decade.

[Vive_La_Villa]

29 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I work from home multiple times a week and get more done from home and actually work more hours - far less distractions and it's better for my welfare all round, there's no dead time in having to commute for instance. 

Incidentally, I remember many years ago as an economics student creating a scatter plot of GDP per hour (which is a measure of productivity) vs hours worked across a host developed and developing countries and found a negative correlation. So the more hours worked the less productive economies are on average, some noteworthy outliers in that relationship were the US (lots of hours and 'lots' of productivity). Interestingly Germany are far more productive than the UK (or were at the time of that analysis) and work a lot less hours. 

We absolutely should be working smarter and not harder, a 4 day week could well be an answer (Keynes was a big fan of it) I'm just not 100% sure about it's suitability across all industries. Be that as it may we're entering times of record job insecurity and heavy automation. I'm currently involved in a project at a major bank which will see thousands of jobs go through automation over the next few years and many other banks are doing the same. Something has to be done and it will require a combination of a basic income guarantee, shorter working weeks and even more job sharing in order to ensure enough people actually have jobs and 'prospects' over the years to come.

For me it all depends on whether I have a deadline looming. If so I get a lot more done at work without the distractions.  If however there’s no pressure at the time I can tend to find it very easy to procrastinate when at home. 
 

Either way it find it makes the week much more bearable when you have that one day at home. 

[bobzy]

36 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I work from home multiple times a week and get more done from home and actually work more hours - far less distractions and it's better for my welfare all round, there's no dead time in having to commute for instance. 

Incidentally, I remember many years ago as an economics student creating a scatter plot of GDP per hour (which is a measure of productivity) vs hours worked across a host developed and developing countries and found a negative correlation. So the more hours worked the less productive economies are on average, some noteworthy outliers in that relationship were the US (lots of hours and 'lots' of productivity). Interestingly Germany are far more productive than the UK (or were at the time of that analysis) and work a lot less hours. 

We absolutely should be working smarter and not harder, a 4 day week could well be an answer (Keynes was a big fan of it) I'm just not 100% sure about it's suitability across all industries. Be that as it may we're entering times of record job insecurity and heavy automation. I'm currently involved in a project at a major bank which will see thousands of jobs go through automation over the next few years and many other banks are doing the same. Something has to be done and it will require a combination of a basic income guarantee, shorter working weeks and even more job sharing in order to ensure enough people actually have jobs and 'prospects' over the years to come.

Pretty much exactly the same as your first summation.  My work are in a strange place of allowing wfh but also discouraging it as the "norm".  However, I would say I comfortably do 2-3 more hours work per day at home than in the office.  The dead travel time accounts for an hour alone.

I work 4 days a week anyway (part-time, one day with my daughter) and it suits me.  Work/life balance is much better, although the assumption on workload is that I'm working 5 days.  Maybe some things will never change.

[lapal_fan]

I think it boils down to efficiency.  Since email and desktop computers arrived, there's been a hunt for efficiency by managers/auditors because we can record findings better. 

Installing trackers on vans for example, ensures builders (or whatever) arrive on time, leave on time.  

It's pretty easy on email to track people.  In other jobs I've had, you have to log onto the works servers to begin your work (gain access to your area) - all date and time stamped. 

So people are less able to pinch time now.  The 4 day week gives the opportunity to get some of that time back in my opinion.  I have 2 kids, I work 9-5.  There isn't a day in the last few years I've got everything I need to get done when I get back at 6 (after commuting), that I'm able to choose what I want to do before 8pm.  

On weekends, if me and the family want to go out for a day (or half a day), that means some cleaning, housework isn't getting done between ensuring the kids are eating appropriately and doing what we've chosen to do. 

I've put several biggish jobs on hold over the spring/summer because if I did them, I'd have to commit 2 days to doing them, which would mean I don't really get to see my wife/kids on the weekend before going back to work on Monday. 

Time just evaporates, and when I do sit down at 8pm and have dinner, then you've got the tiding up and stuff.. by 8.30/9pm I'm knackered!   

4 day week would give me so much time for "chores" etc, and I could definitely do a 4.5 day week as well. 

It's not for everyone, but I'd benefit. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Pretty much exactly the same as your first summation.  My work are in a strange place of allowing wfh but also discouraging it as the "norm".  However, I would say I comfortably do 2-3 more hours work per day at home than in the office.  The dead travel time accounts for an hour alone.

I work 4 days a week anyway (part-time, one day with my daughter) and it suits me.  Work/life balance is much better, although the assumption on workload is that I'm working 5 days.  Maybe some things will never change.

I'm quite fortunate. At my place it's encouraged at least twice a week, but the reality is that my direct reports are spread across the world, I don't need to be in the 'physical' office apart from key face to face stakeholder meetings (which is literally a couple of times a month). There's absolutely no sigma about it where I work but I've worked in organisations before where it was heavily frowned upon and presenteeism was valued. Personally I'm exploring condensed hours from next year, 5 days worth of hours condensed into 4 working days. As I get older the less I want to work! I see myself doing 3 days a week by the time I'm 40, too many hobbies and things to do.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss

[meregreen]

High long term investment in automation and hitec leads to better productivity. Germany’s economy is perhaps the best example. The other route is low wage, low regulation . Guess which route Boris is steering to. 

[Seat68]

Changed my vote. Realistically I think I will end up voting Labour. I don't really want to but I feel I may have to. We have been at times a marginal seat, with my MP standing down it might be again and I don't want to end up kicking myself. Still dislike Corbyn. 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said:

As for being right about Corbyn,  it's just that I find it odd that she is way more vocal about Labour than the Conservatives (or maybe it's just because there is way more reporting on it) which could end up being massively detrimental.

One obvious problem for Swinson and her playmates in working with Labour is that it would involve reversing just about everything they voted through when they were the tories' little helpers (or else trying to block Labour undoing the tories' work, which would not constitute working with Labour), which would draw repeated attention to the many bad things they enabled, give all other parties lots of continually refreshed examples of LibDems' actions compared to the rhetoric and therefore scope for charges of hypocrisy, and create an even bigger credibility problem than they have already. 

It would be easier for them to work with the tories since they are ideologically closer to them, and they have already given us several years demonstrating that they are entirely comfortable doing so.  Brexit is the one obvious stand-out obstacle; but their actions in making a strong play for seats where they can't win but can enable a tory victory show that's not the key issue they claim, hence the consternation among those local Libdems who really do think that stopping Brexit should be the main aim, rather than hoping for a little job in a tory government as junior minister for pies or something.

[ml1dch]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

...their actions in making a strong play for seats where they can't win but can enable a tory victory...

Surely the same works in reverse then?  If Labour are trying to diminish the Lib Dem vote in seats they can't win, then they can't be all that concerned about a Conservative majority either. 

Why are they trying to help the Conservatives to hold St Ives, Winchester and Wokingham?

[StefanAVFC]

Richmond and Usher too

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Changed my vote. Realistically I think I will end up voting Labour. I don't really want to but I feel I may have to. We have been at times a marginal seat, with my MP standing down it might be again and I don't want to end up kicking myself. Still dislike Corbyn. 

I think there will be a lot of this pragmatism going on between now and the election, I said as much a few days ago in some post or other

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Surely the same works in reverse then?  If Labour are trying to diminish the Lib Dem vote in seats they can't win, then they can't be all that concerned about a Conservative majority either. 

The Libdems have made Brexit out to be the overriding policy priority for this election around which all else must be fitted (at least in their rhetoric), Labour have not.  For the Libdems, having an MP of another party who will support a second referendum rather than a hard Brexit should be a significant gain, at least if you think they are sincere in what they say about preventing this Brexit (I don't, personally).  For Labour, I imagine the difference between a Libdem and a Tory is less clear, when both support things like the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions, austerity...let's not forget that it was the Libdems who enabled all sorts of dreadful things from 2010 onwards.  In practical terms, it made no difference having Libdems rather than tories elected over those awful years.

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, peterms said:

The Libdems have made Brexit out to be the overriding policy priority for this election around which all else must be fitted (at least in their rhetoric), Labour have not.  

No, they have made a Labour Government their priority. 

Something that is a great deal harder to form if they aim to compete in seats where they can't win but can enable a Tory victory.

 

[desensitized43]

51 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Changed my vote. Realistically I think I will end up voting Labour. I don't really want to but I feel I may have to. We have been at times a marginal seat, with my MP standing down it might be again and I don't want to end up kicking myself. Still dislike Corbyn. 

You're not the only one feeling like this. I really don't what to vote for Corbyn but at the moment I think it's the best option to get the Tories out of my seat. They're dangerous, right wing extremists and they're going to destroy the country for ideological and party-self-preservation reasons.

I'm thinking/hoping that Labour will end up in a coalition of some description with the SNP or Lib Dems, maybe both. I hope that those parties can act as a stablising influence on Corbyn to stop him going too far and bankrupting the country, which I think he would do if Labour won outright. 

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

You're not the only one feeling like this. I really don't what to vote for Corbyn but at the moment I think it's the best option to get the Tories out of my seat. They're dangerous, right wing extremists and they're going to destroy the country for ideological and party-self-preservation reasons.

I'm thinking/hoping that Labour will end up in a coalition of some description with the SNP or Lib Dems, maybe both. I hope that those parties can act as a stablising influence on Corbyn to stop him going too far and bankrupting the country, which I think he would do if Labour won outright. 

same here...i just dont understand though why they're not just making it a 2 horse race in each constituency. if my lib dem candidate stepped aside, i honestly think labour would have shot at taking the tory seat as i've also got a brexit candidate

[Vive_La_Villa]

I just can’t find myself voting for Corbyn. Can’t stand the guy.

My constituency is one that Labour will be looking to take back too. It will be tight.

Im abstaining I think.  Let the rest of you decide our fate. 

[NurembergVillan]

4 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Time to find out whether Swinson can put country before party and her own vanity.

If vanity were a factor she'd be on the phone to Roberto Firmino and Jurgen Klopp to find out who fixed their teeth.

I find her a fascinating politician but she's got a gob like a witch doctor's necklace.