Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Making Amber Rudd Tory Leader & Prime Minister might be the on

24

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    rcs1000 said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    If I remember rightly, there's a list of about a dozen words you're not allowed to use in company names without good reason. So, you can't call yourself "John Smith Trading (International) Ltd." unless you actually are international in some way, shape or form.

    I don't know if "Institute" in on the list. If it is, it would be interesting to know what the requirements are to be one.

    It's also possible they've fallen foul of the "trading under then name of" rules, which limit your ability to be John Smith Ltd, trading under the name of IBM.
    I'd heard Subways was formed and owned by a company called Doctor's Associates or the like, so I assume such rules either don't apply in the US or its ok so long as your trading name is different.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Institute does not imply official or approved. Its official definition is 'an organisation founded to promote a cause'. It is bloody ridiculous that the state can decide what constitutes an institute and what does not. All it reveals is that whoever proposed and passed that law was too fecking lazy to read a dictionary.

    Your comparison with 'Chemist' is fatuous.
    It’s completely understandable to restrict certain business names and descriptions to qualified members of particular trades and professions, but “institute” is very vague by comparison. Political think-tanks with grand names are not exactly unusual.
  • Sandpit said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Institute does not imply official or approved. Its official definition is 'an organisation founded to promote a cause'. It is bloody ridiculous that the state can decide what constitutes an institute and what does not. All it reveals is that whoever proposed and passed that law was too fecking lazy to read a dictionary.

    Your comparison with 'Chemist' is fatuous.
    It’s completely understandable to restrict certain business names and descriptions to qualified members of particular trades and professions, but “institute” is very vague by comparison. Political think-tanks with grand names are not exactly unusual.
    The Institute of Directors if official, it is to stop the less accredited The Directors' Institute causing mischief.

    A lot of the professional bodies such as Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very protective of the I word.
  • Paddy Power have a new rival.

    Star Sports Bookmakers has apologised after being accused of racism for posting a picture of a man mocking Diane Abbott on Twitter.

    The tweet, which has since been deleted, was posted on Friday night and showed a man with his face covered in dark make-up at a darts competition holding up a sign reading 190.

    The sign was a reference to the shadow home secretary's blunder with policing numbers in a radio interview during the General Election campaign.

    https://news.sky.com/story/bookmaker-accused-of-casual-racism-over-diane-abbott-mockery-11174568
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Institute does not imply official or approved. Its official definition is 'an organisation founded to promote a cause'. It is bloody ridiculous that the state can decide what constitutes an institute and what does not. All it reveals is that whoever proposed and passed that law was too fecking lazy to read a dictionary.

    Your comparison with 'Chemist' is fatuous.
    It’s completely understandable to restrict certain business names and descriptions to qualified members of particular trades and professions, but “institute” is very vague by comparison. Political think-tanks with grand names are not exactly unusual.
    The Institute of Directors if official, it is to stop the less accredited The Directors' Institute causing mischief.

    A lot of the professional bodies such as Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very protective of the I word.
    I’d have thought the ICA were more protective of the C word and the A word myself.

    How’s about the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as a more appropriate comparator to this case?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    twitter.com/feedthedrummer/status/942349509367091200

    I don't think that is the most Hannan ever. I prefer this one...

    https://twitter.com/kurt_obruny/status/941650851940192256
  • kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/jonathanliew/status/942365439195152385

    What was the media vilification about? I'm not sure anything can logically culminate into racist abuse.
    One racist moron turned up outside the training ground to throw a metaphorical banana at Sterling, and the media go mad and start blaming themselves. It was just one racist moron, which is a heck of a lot fewer than used to turn up at football grounds every weekend.
    There's probably plenty of racist morons who still turn up, but thankfully they are less, and even most morons will know to keep their traps shut.
    Well, they didn't get a mandate for that manifesto so I guess it's junked?

    Whatever the purported positives, however, I cannot see a minority government selling such an idea to the public.
    ydoethur said:

    Porn has been around since photography became available to the massespaintbrushes were invented. It really makes me mad that some prudish members of the government want to make it harder to find porn. Besides before the internet I remember as a teenager finding pornographic magazines with the pages stuck together in fields- do we really want to go back to that as a society? I would rather people looked at porn in their own environment without polluting the landscape with cast offs.

    Fixed the first part.

    I doubt humanity waited until we had paintbrushes - hand daubed images sufficient with plenty of imagination.

    Personally I think the proper way to enjoy porn is via the medium of scrimshaw, but it's hard to find these days

    https://jezebel.com/5992178/vancouver-women-complains-that-museums-whale-bone-porn-is-tickling-too-many-moby-dicks
    The WTR will go, the rights will remain.

    Super simple stuff.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Institute does not imply official or approved. Its official definition is 'an organisation founded to promote a cause'. It is bloody ridiculous that the state can decide what constitutes an institute and what does not. All it reveals is that whoever proposed and passed that law was too fecking lazy to read a dictionary.

    Your comparison with 'Chemist' is fatuous.
    It’s completely understandable to restrict certain business names and descriptions to qualified members of particular trades and professions, but “institute” is very vague by comparison. Political think-tanks with grand names are not exactly unusual.
    The Institute of Directors if official, it is to stop the less accredited The Directors' Institute causing mischief.

    A lot of the professional bodies such as Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very protective of the I word.
    I’d have thought the ICA were more protective of the C word and the A word myself.

    How’s about the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as a more appropriate comparator to this case?
    The IFS are are a registered charity so they meet an appropriate threshold to use the I word.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/feedthedrummer/status/942349509367091200

    I don't think that is the most Hannan ever. I prefer this one...

    https://twitter.com/kurt_obruny/status/941650851940192256
    https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/941995264637833216
  • Bobby Firmino, what a touch.
  • Re the above graps there should be another comparing constituency swing to national swing.

    In which case I would expect Hague or Douglas-Home to have done best.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/feedthedrummer/status/942349509367091200

    I don't think that is the most Hannan ever. I prefer this one...

    https://twitter.com/kurt_obruny/status/941650851940192256
    https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/941995264637833216
    Mind-you, Daniel Hannan could direct that question at himself. Hence the tweet Scott posted.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
  • IIRC our own TSE has rather strong opinions about Raheem Sterling and has not been shy of expressing them.

    Perhaps this moron is a PB reader.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    As far as I can see it is Gove who is going to propose ending the maximum 48 hour week to Cabinet, there is no suggestion anywhere it yet has the support of May.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    FF43 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/feedthedrummer/status/942349509367091200

    I don't think that is the most Hannan ever. I prefer this one...

    https://twitter.com/kurt_obruny/status/941650851940192256
    https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/941995264637833216
    Mind-you, Daniel Hannan could direct that question at himself. Hence the tweet Scott posted.
    Not at all. The travel area between Britain and Ireland currently operates and will continue to operate in exactly the same way as the border between Switzerland and the EU.

    Any border between U.K. and Ireland post-Brexit will only be for goods, not for people.
  • Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sandpit said:

    Any border between U.K. and Ireland post-Brexit will only be for goods, not for people.

    Take Back Control of our borders !!!

    No, not that one...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Looks like I've been blocked by Hannan.
  • Isn't dietician protected but nutritionist isn't?

    As an aside, whilst at university a young lady asked me, for some research, to fill in my daily diet for a few days. I did so and got the results back, and was surprised I are slightly more than the recommended amount in every category. Given I didn't eat much then, and don't now, and was (and am) a healthy weight with not much fat, I do wonder if this might be indicative of such tests requiring certain assumptions by the analysts which might mean they look at the variable 'badness' of a given food and assume it's the worst variety of that type.

    Whilst I'm rambling, the current guidelines of 10 recommended portions of fruit or veg a day is crazy. I'd probably have to become a vegetarian to get anywhere near it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Isn't dietician protected but nutritionist isn't?

    Yes, that's why you should never trust a nutritionist.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
  • Isn't dietician protected but nutritionist isn't?

    As an aside, whilst at university a young lady asked me, for some research, to fill in my daily diet for a few days. I did so and got the results back, and was surprised I are slightly more than the recommended amount in every category. Given I didn't eat much then, and don't now, and was (and am) a healthy weight with not much fat, I do wonder if this might be indicative of such tests requiring certain assumptions by the analysts which might mean they look at the variable 'badness' of a given food and assume it's the worst variety of that type.

    Whilst I'm rambling, the current guidelines of 10 recommended portions of fruit or veg a day is crazy. I'd probably have to become a vegetarian to get anywhere near it.

    Its five a day or at least that's what it says on the tin.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2017
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any border between U.K. and Ireland post-Brexit will only be for goods, not for people.

    Take Back Control of our borders !!!

    No, not that one...
    Ha ha ha, Boom Boom.

    Absolutely no-one has suggested we touch the CTA as a result of Brexit, and this will be case for as long as the UK and Ireland agree on passport and visa requirements for entry to the two countries. This is the point Hannan is making.

    Note that I’m deliberately avoiding the phrases “Freedom of Movement” or “Movement of People” as these have a specific meaning (in an EU context) related to the issuance of NI numbers and entitlement to benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with checking passports at borders.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    I was thinking of the US. Banc of America Securities was called that because it allowed them to avoid being regulated as bank because they obviously weren't...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
  • Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Therapist, counsellor, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst are not protected here.
    Any totally unqualified quack or charlatan can use them at will.
    One of the causes of Kids Company scandal.
    There will be more...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    edited December 2017
    ydoethur said:

    Bloody comment swallowing threads.

    justin124 said:

    TSE
    The figures shown for Heath at Bexley in 1966 are wrong! His majority in the 1966 election was halved to circa 2300 compared with circa 4500 in 1964. There was a swing to Labour there of over 2%.

    Wasn't that rather famously due to the Communist candidate standing down?
    There was a fourth candidate in 1964 but he was (a) not a Communist (or at least not officially) and (b) only polled 2.3% of the vote, hardly explaining a five-point rise for Labour in 1966. However, Heath's vote rose as well - it was the Liberal vote that was seriously squeezed.
    The Bexley communist relates to when Ted Heath was first elected in 1950.

    His majority being only 133 with the Communist candidate getting 481 votes.
  • Mr. Dean, sometimes charlatans get official approval. Polygraphs (so-called 'lie-detectors', which are nothing of the sort) are used on paedophiles out of prison to try and ensure they're not committing offences any more.

    It's pretend science for the hard of thinking. Coupled to that, paedophiles are amongst the best liars in the criminal fraternity (probably edged out by psychopaths).
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
    You should have vanilla mail.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any border between U.K. and Ireland post-Brexit will only be for goods, not for people.

    Take Back Control of our borders !!!

    No, not that one...
    Ha ha ha, Boom Boom.

    Absolutely no-one has suggested we touch the CTA as a result of Brexit, and this will be case for as long as the UK and Ireland agree on passport and visa requirements for entry to the two countries. This is the point Hannan is making.

    Note that I’m deliberately avoiding the phrases “Freedom of Movement” or “Movement of People” as these have a specific meaning (in an EU context) related to the issuance of NI numbers and entitlement to benefits, nothing whatsoever to do with checking passports at borders.
    Some people have suggested it (Luckyguy, for instance), but they are very much in the minority.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
  • Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-eatwell-guide-illustrates-a-healthy-balanced-diet

    It all seems pretty reasonable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Institute does not imply official or approved. Its official definition is 'an organisation founded to promote a cause'. It is bloody ridiculous that the state can decide what constitutes an institute and what does not. All it reveals is that whoever proposed and passed that law was too fecking lazy to read a dictionary.

    Your comparison with 'Chemist' is fatuous.
    It’s completely understandable to restrict certain business names and descriptions to qualified members of particular trades and professions, but “institute” is very vague by comparison. Political think-tanks with grand names are not exactly unusual.
    The Institute of Directors if official, it is to stop the less accredited The Directors' Institute causing mischief.

    A lot of the professional bodies such as Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are very protective of the I word.
    I’d have thought the ICA were more protective of the C word and the A word myself.

    How’s about the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as a more appropriate comparator to this case?
    The IFS are are a registered charity so they meet an appropriate threshold to use the I word.
    Ah okay. I’ll bow to your experience on this one.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited December 2017

    Mr. Dean, sometimes charlatans get official approval. Polygraphs (so-called 'lie-detectors', which are nothing of the sort) are used on paedophiles out of prison to try and ensure they're not committing offences any more.

    It's pretend science for the hard of thinking. Coupled to that, paedophiles are amongst the best liars in the criminal fraternity (probably edged out by psychopaths).

    Ubiquitous in the USA indeed. Fortunately polygraphs remain inadmissble AIUI in UK.
    However, I am not a lawyer (nor do I claim to be).

    They tend to tell you whether the subject is stresssed or not,
    An innocent person would tend be so (naturally).
    A genuine psychopath not so much.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
  • Mr. rkrkrk, equal guidelines suggests men and women, on average, can drink the same amount to the same effect. I'd suggest that's not the case, and that the change in guidelines is down to a political mantra of equality rather than scientific principles.

    'This level of consumption' may be accurate but the message that people will receive from the official guidelines is that men and women can drink the same. They won't read a report and assess the guidelines in that light, they'll just hear the official approval for men and women drinking the same being A-ok. At higher levels, whether chronic or acute, that'll be more harmful to women (particularly ladettes).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
    Yes but legally he could not have fired you specifically for it once you had been hired, although it would have limited your promotion prospects.

    As long as May remains PM I can't see removing the 48 hour working week being a priority though, it is more a priority for the ultra pro market and anti regulation Gove and Hannan wing of the Tory Party.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,234
    Sandpit said:

    Absolutely no-one has suggested we touch the CTA as a result of Brexit, and this will be case for as long as the UK and Ireland agree on passport and visa requirements for entry to the two countries. This is the point Hannan is making.

    This is true, but I've bolded the important bits. For this to work, the UK and Ireland have to agree. This causes problems in these two cases:

    a) UK wants to change requirements but Ireland does not
    b) Ireland wants to change requirements but UK does not.

    In both cases Ireland's wishes have to be taken into account. Many UK people has dealt with this by assuming that Ireland will always agree with UK, but that assumption is not strongly underpinned by evidence

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
    Yes but legally he could not have fired you specifically for it once you had been hired, although it would have limited your promotion prospects.
    Goldman had a tactic of ensuring that everyone was always guilty of breaking the acceptable internet usage policy. In this way, anyone could be fired at any time. (But they'd only use it, of course, if you were an unprofitable employee.)
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
    Yes, a friend of mine (when working for a famous medical-research body) complained to his manager that he was working every hour God gave under a crushing workload. It was agreed that something needed to be done. Their solution: get him to sign the WTD opt out.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
    Yes but legally he could not have fired you specifically for it once you had been hired, although it would have limited your promotion prospects.
    Goldman had a tactic of ensuring that everyone was always guilty of breaking the acceptable internet usage policy. In this way, anyone could be fired at any time. (But they'd only use it, of course, if you were an unprofitable employee.)
    That sounds similar to the current 'Alex' cartoon in the Telegraph.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,234
    If memory serves, "doctor" is not a protected term in the UK, and I think this is unlike other countries. Next time your dentists refers to themselves as "doctors", laugh at them. And unfortunately, the longstanding convention that surgeons specifically do *not* refer to themselves as "doctors" seem to be dying out.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 193
    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Absolutely no-one has suggested we touch the CTA as a result of Brexit, and this will be case for as long as the UK and Ireland agree on passport and visa requirements for entry to the two countries. This is the point Hannan is making.

    This is true, but I've bolded the important bits. For this to work, the UK and Ireland have to agree. This causes problems in these two cases:

    a) UK wants to change requirements but Ireland does not
    b) Ireland wants to change requirements but UK does not.

    In both cases Ireland's wishes have to be taken into account. Many UK people has dealt with this by assuming that Ireland will always agree with UK, but that assumption is not strongly underpinned by evidence
    It seems to have worked pretty well for as long as Ireland has been independent, and there doesn’t seem to be any current discussion about changing it from either side.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area

    It has however been “confused” (by people who should really understand these things) with the Brexit negotiations on the UK-Ire land border, and interchanged with EU “Freedom of Movement” rules which are completely unrelated subjects. If one were being uncharitable, one might say that this confusion has been deliberate and intended to mislead.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled .
    Yes but legally he could not have fired you specifically for it once you had been hired, although it would have limited your promotion prospects.
    Goldman had a tactic of ensuring that everyone was always guilty of breaking the acceptable internet usage policy. In this way, anyone could be fired at any time. (But they'd only use it, of course, if you were an unprofitable employee.)
    Though presumably they still had a copy of the internet usage policy somewhere on their electronic records management system or in paper form which employees could read?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Any border between U.K. and Ireland post-Brexit will only be for goods, not for people.

    Take Back Control of our borders !!!

    No, not that one...
    And that's an issue with the statement because...?
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
    Over about four hours.

    And after drinking the eight pints he drove his car into a tree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. When I worked at Goldman, I found a prefilled out letter on my desk one day awaiting my signature. The letter - of course - was from me to the firm asking permission to be exempted from the EU Working Time Directive.

    I strolled down to the Head of Research and casually asked him what the consequences would be of not signing it. The look he gave me made it pretty clear that it would be a career limiting move.
    Yes but legally he could not have fired you specifically for it once you had been hired, although it would have limited your promotion prospects.
    Goldman had a tactic of ensuring that everyone was always guilty of breaking the acceptable internet usage policy. In this way, anyone could be fired at any time. (But they'd only use it, of course, if you were an unprofitable employee.)
    That’s an old trick. I may have written such an acceptable use policy in the past (but not for Goldman).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/jonathanliew/status/942365439195152385

    What was the media vilification about? I'm not sure anything can logically culminate into racist abuse.
    One racist moron turned up outside the training ground to throw a metaphorical banana at Sterling, and the media go mad and start blaming themselves. It was just one racist moron, which is a heck of a lot fewer than used to turn up at football grounds every weekend.
    There's probably plenty of racist morons who still turn up, but thankfully they are less, and even most morons will know to keep their traps shut.
    Well, they didn't get a mandate for that manifesto so I guess it's junked?

    Whatever the purported positives, however, I cannot see a minority government selling such an idea to the public.
    ydoethur said:

    Porn has been around since photography became available to the massespaintbrushes were invented. It really makes me mad that some prudish members of the government want to make it harder to find porn. Besides before the internet I remember as a teenager finding pornographic magazines with the pages stuck together in fields- do we really want to go back to that as a society? I would rather people looked at porn in their own environment without polluting the landscape with cast offs.

    Fixed the first part.

    I doubt humanity waited until we had paintbrushes - hand daubed images sufficient with plenty of imagination.

    Personally I think the proper way to enjoy porn is via the medium of scrimshaw, but it's hard to find these days

    https://jezebel.com/5992178/vancouver-women-complains-that-museums-whale-bone-porn-is-tickling-too-many-moby-dicks
    The WTR will go, the rights will remain.

    Super simple stuff.
    Something being simple never prevented it from being misunderstood, particularly if the ones proposing it are not popular.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    dixiedean said:

    Mr. Dean, sometimes charlatans get official approval. Polygraphs (so-called 'lie-detectors', which are nothing of the sort) are used on paedophiles out of prison to try and ensure they're not committing offences any more.

    It's pretend science for the hard of thinking. Coupled to that, paedophiles are amongst the best liars in the criminal fraternity (probably edged out by psychopaths).

    Ubiquitous in the USA indeed. Fortunately polygraphs remain inadmissble AIUI in UK.
    However, I am not a lawyer (nor do I claim to be).

    They tend to tell you whether the subject is stresssed or not,
    An innocent person would tend be so (naturally).
    A genuine psychopath not so much.
    Yes, I'm amazed they are still used - when even tv shows which rely on magical science to routinely solve cases in super quick time almost always only use a polygraph to confirm the bad guy is able to 'beat' it, pop culture is running ahead of the game for once.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The flaw in the article is the word "only".

    It is wrong to say that the "only" way for Rudd to save her seat is for her to become leader. Rudd could increase her majority as the result of a range of factors. Suppose for example there is a very large increase in the number of older Tories who turn out to vote in 2022, in contrast to the decrease in the number that turned out in 2017?
  • Mr. Dean, precisely. It just means stress. A calm liar looks innocent, a stressed out innocent person does not. They have about a 50% success rate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
    Over about four hours.

    And after drinking the eight pints he drove his car into a tree.
    Many more people end up in hospital due to misadventure while under the influence than as a result of the alcohol itself. Your acquaintance was lucky that a hospital bed is generally more comfortable than a police station cell.
  • HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    You really ought to understand the law on how it operates currently before opining. Opinion without knowledge is valueless.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    stevef said:

    The flaw in the article is the word "only".

    It is wrong to say that the "only" way for Rudd to save her seat is for her to become leader. Rudd could increase her majority as the result of a range of factors. Suppose for example there is a very large increase in the number of older Tories who turn out to vote in 2022, in contrast to the decrease in the number that turned out in 2017?

    What's your basis for saying the oldies who didn't turn out in 2017 were all Tories?

    I think it's just as likely that the oldie abstentions were lifelong Labour voters who didn't turn out because of Corbyn's views on Trident/monarchy/etc. After all, among those oldies that did turn out, the Tories vastly increased their share of the vote compared to 2015.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Support for permanent supremacy of EU regulations over UK law largely is, Gove is the Cabinet member most vociferously resisting permanent regulatory alignment with the EU.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Danny565 said:

    stevef said:

    The flaw in the article is the word "only".

    It is wrong to say that the "only" way for Rudd to save her seat is for her to become leader. Rudd could increase her majority as the result of a range of factors. Suppose for example there is a very large increase in the number of older Tories who turn out to vote in 2022, in contrast to the decrease in the number that turned out in 2017?

    What's your basis for saying the oldies who didn't turn out in 2017 were all Tories?

    I think it's just as likely that the oldie abstentions were lifelong Labour voters who didn't turn out because of Corbyn's views on Trident/monarchy/etc. After all, among those oldies that did turn out, the Tories vastly increased their share of the vote compared to 2015.
    There were also 412 votes for a Corbynite independent ISTR (more than her majority).
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
    Over about four hours.

    And after drinking the eight pints he drove his car into a tree.
    Many more people end up in hospital due to misadventure while under the influence than as a result of the alcohol itself. Your acquaintance was lucky that a hospital bed is generally more comfortable than a police station cell.
    Which makes the point that moderate drinking is okay but binge drinking is likely to cause problems.

    And if you're having 50 units a week then at some point you'll be binge drinking.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    You really ought to understand the law on how it operates currently before opining. Opinion without knowledge is valueless.
    Nothing I said was inconsistent with the law. You would still only be able to work longer than 48 hours if your working hours set out in your contract of employment allow for that (plus of course as I also said workers in some fields like the airline or shipping industries cannot currently work longer than 48 hours even if they do opt-out).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
    You should have vanilla mail.
    Email sent.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
    You should have vanilla mail.
    Email sent.
    Received, with thanks.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
    You should have vanilla mail.
    Email sent.
    Received, with thanks.
    you haven't read it yet...
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    All that shows is we have some stupid fecking laws that need changing.
    Actually it is a law I support.

    It is designed to stop every unaccredited Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to pass themselves of as official or approved.

    For example you cannot have 'Chemist' in your business name without approval from The General Pharmaceutical Council.
    Although it can get silly.

    "Bank" is regulated "Banc" is not
    Banc is regulated.

    See item 13 on this annex

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government
    By the way where should I send that article? The title is specially for you...
    You should have vanilla mail.
    Email sent.
    Received, with thanks.
    you haven't read it yet...
    I read the headline.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    You really ought to understand the law on how it operates currently before opining. Opinion without knowledge is valueless.
    Nothing I said was inconsistent with the law. You would still only be able to work longer than 48 hours if your working hours set out in your contract of employment allow for that (plus of course as I also said workers in some fields like the airline or shipping industries cannot currently work longer than 48 hours even if they do opt-out).
    If you say so. Don’t take up employment law advice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    You really ought to understand the law on how it operates currently before opining. Opinion without knowledge is valueless.
    Nothing I said was inconsistent with the law. You would still only be able to work longer than 48 hours if your working hours set out in your contract of employment allow for that (plus of course as I also said workers in some fields like the airline or shipping industries cannot currently work longer than 48 hours even if they do opt-out).
    If you say so. Don’t take up employment law advice.
    I originally said you would still not have to work more than 48 hours unless it was in your contract so there was nothing inconsistent with any proposed change to the law on that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Support for permanent supremacy of EU regulations over UK law largely is, Gove is the Cabinet member most vociferously resisting permanent regulatory alignment with the EU.

    A neo-liberal might very well favour replacing laws made by national legislatures with laws made by supranational institutions - and many do.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
    Over about four hours.

    And after drinking the eight pints he drove his car into a tree.
    Many more people end up in hospital due to misadventure while under the influence than as a result of the alcohol itself. Your acquaintance was lucky that a hospital bed is generally more comfortable than a police station cell.
    Which makes the point that moderate drinking is okay but binge drinking is likely to cause problems.

    And if you're having 50 units a week then at some point you'll be binge drinking.
    That's seven a day; say a large glass of wine at lunch, and half a bottle in the evening.

    Sure, that's quite a lot of drinking. But there's not a lot of bingeing.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,234
    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Absolutely no-one has suggested we touch the CTA as a result of Brexit, and this will be case for as long as the UK and Ireland agree on passport and visa requirements for entry to the two countries. This is the point Hannan is making.

    This is true, but I've bolded the important bits. For this to work, the UK and Ireland have to agree. This causes problems in these two cases:

    a) UK wants to change requirements but Ireland does not
    b) Ireland wants to change requirements but UK does not.

    In both cases Ireland's wishes have to be taken into account. Many UK people has dealt with this by assuming that Ireland will always agree with UK, but that assumption is not strongly underpinned by evidence
    It seems to have worked pretty well for as long as Ireland has been independent, and there doesn’t seem to be any current discussion about changing it from either side.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area

    It has however been “confused” (by people who should really understand these things) with the Brexit negotiations on the UK-Ire land border, and interchanged with EU “Freedom of Movement” rules which are completely unrelated subjects. If one were being uncharitable, one might say that this confusion has been deliberate and intended to mislead.
    Uncharitable? Heaven forfend... :)

    But bear in mind that Ireland has only been independent for about a century, and we've both been a member of the EU/predecessor for 44 years. As I keep saying in this burgh, we don't have a sufficient understanding of Ireland, its aspirations nor politics. Proximity, memories of the Troubles and the beliefs of people of Irish descent living in Britain (idlibs?) is not enough, as recent events testify.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Support for permanent supremacy of EU regulations over UK law largely is, Gove is the Cabinet member most vociferously resisting permanent regulatory alignment with the EU.

    A neo-liberal might very well favour replacing laws made by national legislatures with laws made by supranational institutions - and many do.
    'Neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.'

    So neo-liberalism is clearly not in favour of imposing significant numbers of regulations over a country no matter what the source

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. Richard, I believe they upped it within the last year or so.

    Still a million times more sensible than the politically-driven idiocy of giving men and women equal drinking guidelines. Because political correctness alters the quantity of blood people have in their bodies, you know.

    Or you know they carefully reviewed the updated evidence base and decided it was best:

    Dr John Holmes, senior research fellow from the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, said having the same guidelines “reflects that there are only very minor differences in alcohol-related health risk between the sexes at this level of consumption”.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/mens-recommended-maximum-weekly-alcohol-units-cut-14
    That's because there is essentially no risk at 14 units. Or 30 units. Or 50 units.

    Only when you start regularly getting above that level do you start worrying about body mass.
    I know someone who had 16 units and ended up in hospital.
    In one go?
    Over about four hours.

    And after drinking the eight pints he drove his car into a tree.
    Many more people end up in hospital due to misadventure while under the influence than as a result of the alcohol itself. Your acquaintance was lucky that a hospital bed is generally more comfortable than a police station cell.
    Which makes the point that moderate drinking is okay but binge drinking is likely to cause problems.

    And if you're having 50 units a week then at some point you'll be binge drinking.
    That's seven a day; say a large glass of wine at lunch, and half a bottle in the evening.

    Sure, that's quite a lot of drinking. But there's not a lot of bingeing.
    Seven a day on average.

    There's likely to be one or two days when its only one or two units.

    And if the 'catch-up' happens all at once - a few pints followed by a whole bottle of wine and then a short or two - that's when the potential for problems escalates.

    Sure for many people they can still be sensible after getting well lubricated but for others ...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    edited December 2017

    Mr. rkrkrk, equal guidelines suggests men and women, on average, can drink the same amount to the same effect. I'd suggest that's not the case, and that the change in guidelines is down to a political mantra of equality rather than scientific principles.

    'This level of consumption' may be accurate but the message that people will receive from the official guidelines is that men and women can drink the same. They won't read a report and assess the guidelines in that light, they'll just hear the official approval for men and women drinking the same being A-ok. At higher levels, whether chronic or acute, that'll be more harmful to women (particularly ladettes).

    This is not about people being drunk - it’s about health risk.
    As the guidance makes clear - alcohol increases your risk of cancer.
    At the end of the day, the govt should provide accurate health information to the public. Who are perfectly free to ignore it as they choose. Knowingly providing the wrong information (that men are less susceptible to alcohol health risk is wrong).

    I don’t understand your determination to make this about political correctness.
  • HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
    Not if you work in the airline or shipping industries where you can't currently opt out of the 48 hour limit

    Though for most jobs I agree it would just move from an opt out to contractual terms which would determine whether you can work more than 48 hours
  • HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    You do not need to agree it in your contract. You can work paid overtime either by verbal agreement with 7 days notice starting or finishing or with 3 months notice if you are amending your contract to do so.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Support for permanent supremacy of EU regulations over UK law largely is, Gove is the Cabinet member most vociferously resisting permanent regulatory alignment with the EU.

    A neo-liberal might very well favour replacing laws made by national legislatures with laws made by supranational institutions - and many do.
    'Neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.'

    So neo-liberalism is clearly not in favour of imposing significant numbers of regulations over a country no matter what the source

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
    A neo-liberal might wish to prevent a country from pursuing left wing economic policies, and seek to prevent this through international bodies; or consider that separate national regulatory systems constitute a barrier to trade; or favour free migration.
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Neoliberal, not sure. Libertarian, definitely yes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    You do not need to agree it in your contract. You can work paid overtime either by verbal agreement with 7 days notice starting or finishing or with 3 months notice if you are amending your contract to do so.


    Currently you need to opt out of the Directive for a period or indefinitely in writing by saying that you are willing to work more than an average of 48 hours a week, in any other case you cannot work more than 48 hours a week.

    As you also state overtime can only be agreed by agreement of at least 7 days prior or 3 months notice if you wish to incorporate it in your contract, it cannot be imposed on a whim, Directive or no Directive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Support for permanent supremacy of EU regulations over UK law largely is, Gove is the Cabinet member most vociferously resisting permanent regulatory alignment with the EU.

    A neo-liberal might very well favour replacing laws made by national legislatures with laws made by supranational institutions - and many do.
    'Neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Such ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.'

    So neo-liberalism is clearly not in favour of imposing significant numbers of regulations over a country no matter what the source

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
    A neo-liberal might wish to prevent a country from pursuing left wing economic policies, and seek to prevent this through international bodies; or consider that separate national regulatory systems constitute a barrier to trade; or favour free migration.
    Free migration has nothing to do with increasing working hours, it is perfectly possible to support a 100 hour working week and free migration. Scrapping national regulations completely and dealing with them internationally is of course a completely separate argument for adding regulations imposed supranationally to those currently imposed domestically as is currently the case with the EU.

    Nothing in this of course in any way disputes my original contention that Gove is the most neoliberal member of the Cabinet because it remains absolutely true.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Neoliberal, not sure. Libertarian, definitely yes.
    A neoliberal in pure economic terms is basically a Libertarian in all but name anyway.

    Mrs May is certainly no libertarian, Gove on most matters is.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,234
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    You do not need to agree it in your contract. You can work paid overtime either by verbal agreement with 7 days notice starting or finishing or with 3 months notice if you are amending your contract to do so.


    Currently you need to opt out of the Directive for a period or indefinitely in writing by saying that you are willing to work more than an average of 48 hours a week, in any other case you cannot work more than 48 hours a week.

    As you also state overtime can only be agreed by agreement of at least 7 days prior or 3 months notice if you wish to incorporate it in your contract, it cannot be imposed on a whim, Directive or no Directive.
    As I have mentioned before I have more than one job. When I applied for the second, I had to sign a letter opting-out of the maximum workweek, which I assumed to be WTD related
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
    Not if you work in the airline or shipping industries where you can't currently opt out of the 48 hour limit

    Though for most jobs I agree it would just move from an opt out to contractual terms which would determine whether you can work more than 48 hours
    And rightly so. I do not want people in safety critical roles working excessive hours.

    The Oil and Gas industry is effectively exempt from the WTD but they have separate rules that prevent anyone working more than 16 hours and then having to have a minimum of 8 hours off. This is strictly enforced under the Safety Case system. Messing with anything covered by the Safety Case is a very quick way to find your profitable managerial job has disappeared.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour .
    The Sun article and what you originally wrote is wrong.
    No it wasn't. You would still have to agree in your contract when you take the job to work over 48 hours if needed. If your contract set your working hours as a standard 9am-5pm clearly the legislation change would make no difference.

    As I also said it is Gove, probably the Cabinet's most ardent neoliberal, proposing this and not May.
    You do not need to agree it in your contract. You can work paid overtime either by verbal agreement with 7 days notice starting or finishing or with 3 months notice if you are amending your contract to do so.


    Currently you need to opt out of the Directive for a period or indefinitely in writing by saying that you are willing to work more than an average of 48 hours a week, in any other case you cannot work more than 48 hours a week.

    As you also state overtime can only be agreed by agreement of at least 7 days prior or 3 months notice if you wish to incorporate it in your contract, it cannot be imposed on a whim, Directive or no Directive.
    As I have mentioned before I have more than one job. When I applied for the second, I had to sign a letter opting-out of the maximum workweek, which I assumed to be WTD related
    Almost certainly, yes
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Referencing Alec Douglas Home should remind PBers that Scottish peers should always be in the forefront for consideration as Prime Minister ....

    Just saying ....
  • HYUFD said:


    Currently you need to opt out of the Directive for a period or indefinitely in writing by saying that you are willing to work more than an average of 48 hours a week, in any other case you cannot work more than 48 hours a week.

    As you also state overtime can only be agreed by agreement of at least 7 days prior or 3 months notice if you wish to incorporate it in your contract, it cannot be imposed on a whim, Directive or no Directive.

    Which is good. But is a millions miles from what you claimed earlier which was that the WTD prevented people working overtime. All it does is stop (to a large extent) companies imposing overtime against your will.
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Neoliberal, not sure. Libertarian, definitely yes.
    A neoliberal in pure economic terms is basically a Libertarian in all but name anyway.

    Mrs May is certainly no libertarian, Gove on most matters is.
    Not so. Libertarian also implies an opposition to state involvement in all aspects of ones life. One of the important factors that separates Libertarians from Neo-liberals is that the latter might still agree with laws banning drugs, homosexuality etc. A Libertarian believes that Governments should not be making laws about private behaviour in addition to their opposition to state intervention in economic issues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:


    Currently you need to opt out of the Directive for a period or indefinitely in writing by saying that you are willing to work more than an average of 48 hours a week, in any other case you cannot work more than 48 hours a week.

    As you also state overtime can only be agreed by agreement of at least 7 days prior or 3 months notice if you wish to incorporate it in your contract, it cannot be imposed on a whim, Directive or no Directive.

    Which is good. But is a millions miles from what you claimed earlier which was that the WTD prevented people working overtime. All it does is stop (to a large extent) companies imposing overtime against your will.
    I was referring to Gove's proposal principally and pointing out that you could not be forced to work more than 48 hours unless it was in your contract (though as pointed out in areas like shipping and airlines you cannot work overtime taking your weekly working hours to more than 48 hours even if you wanted to, advisable though that may not be).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Doubt if in private Gove is the most neo-liberal Cabinet minister - he was a left wing student and has a neo-con journalist past.
    Savid Javid used to say Ann Rand was his biggest influence.
    Semi Cabinet minister Liz Truss wrote a neo-liberal book 6 years ago with 4 other Tory MP`s whilst Steve Baker has a libertarian background

    Javid is ordering a huge housebuilding programme, hardly neoliberal and backed Remain like Truss.

    Baker is not in the Cabinet.

    Neoliberalism on economics is indistinguishable from neoconservatism on foreign policy for most of the left and Gove is a supporter of both.
    This is true, However, is backing Remain necessarily a disqualification from being a neo-liberal?
    Neoliberal, not sure. Libertarian, definitely yes.
    A neoliberal in pure economic terms is basically a Libertarian in all but name anyway.

    Mrs May is certainly no libertarian, Gove on most matters is.
    Not so. Libertarian also implies an opposition to state involvement in all aspects of ones life. One of the important factors that separates Libertarians from Neo-liberals is that the latter might still agree with laws banning drugs, homosexuality etc. A Libertarian believes that Governments should not be making laws about private behaviour in addition to their opposition to state intervention in economic issues.
    Gove also voted for gay marriage and is largely a social liberal too so it still holds in his case.

    Though I did of course refer specifically to a neoliberal in pure economic terms. Neoliberalism as a concept is focused on economics not social issues.

    The Adam Smith institute changed its label from libertarian to neoliberal in October 2016 while still saying it believed in exactly the same things as it did before.
    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    The brazen dishonesty of this is quite something ...
    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/942167511553970176

    Ending the 48 hour maximum week would mean you can work longer than that if you want to earn more money and you agree in your contract, it does not mean all UK workers will have to work over 48 hours a week.
    https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours
    The 48 hour maximum working week currently stops you working more than 48 hours a week in the UK (with a few exceptions like the army, police and security services) and although you can opt out of it if set out in writing you cannot even do that in certain areas like working for an airline or on a ship.

    There are some professions eg city lawyers where at some stage everybody will need to work more than 48 hours a week eg to complete a contract, yet legally if they do not opt out of it they cannot be forced to work longer hours. All a change would mean is that you would agree longer hours as part of your contract.

    Though really this is all hypothetical, Remainer May is more of a business regulator than a red tape slasher unlike some hard Brexiteers and so this will not be high up the list of her priorities while the hung parliament means it may not get through even if she proposed it anyway.
    But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
    Not if you work in the airline or shipping industries where you can't currently opt out of the 48 hour limit

    Though for most jobs I agree it would just move from an opt out to contractual terms which would determine whether you can work more than 48 hours
    And rightly so. I do not want people in safety critical roles working excessive hours.

    The Oil and Gas industry is effectively exempt from the WTD but they have separate rules that prevent anyone working more than 16 hours and then having to have a minimum of 8 hours off. This is strictly enforced under the Safety Case system. Messing with anything covered by the Safety Case is a very quick way to find your profitable managerial job has disappeared.
    Unless you worked at BP under Lord Browne. They you were promoted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
    Not if you work in the airline or shipping industries where you can't currently opt out of the 48 hour limit

    Though for most jobs I agree it would just move from an opt out to contractual terms which would determine whether you can work more than 48 hours
    And rightly so. I do not want people in safety critical roles working excessive hours.

    The Oil and Gas industry is effectively exempt from the WTD but they have separate rules that prevent anyone working more than 16 hours and then having to have a minimum of 8 hours off. This is strictly enforced under the Safety Case system. Messing with anything covered by the Safety Case is a very quick way to find your profitable managerial job has disappeared.
    Yes, people working in various safety-conscious industries have their own, generally much tighter rules on work patterns and rest periods. A commercial pilot is allowed a maximum of 100 flying hours a month and 900 a year, as probably the most extreme example - yet pilot fatigue is still an issue in the industry.

    The WTD rules, as you say, are there to stop excessive hours being a condition of employment, aimed at the lower end of the job market but also applying to trainee professionals in white collar jobs.

    The anomaly to me has always been junior doctors, who famously used to work literally every waking hour six days a week for several years in an industry where mistakes can literally kill people.
This discussion has been closed.