-
@davesofthunder said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
Personally I would like another vote as I don't think people were well informed the first time with clear campaign breaches from leave and greater context of what it means.
One of the funniest things about Brexit is the Pro-EU groups like the Lib Dems, Blair, many Labour MP's and the political elite saying the referendum was advisory only, Parliament should ignore it and make decisions on EU matters, people who voted Leave - particularly working-class people - "didn't understand" (people who voted Remain were, of course, well-informed) and there was interference from foreign, outside interests
The self-same people are now campaigning for another referendum or "People's Vote" - financed by a Hungarian billionaire......
Funny though how he likes of Farage were lining up for another vote when they thought it was close but it's not OK the other way.
I do think heaps would still want BREXIT but it is a massive multi generational decision and when it is that close I can see how either side would feel that there is a question worth checking once we know what it actually means.
Yep, and it's important to remember that among those that voted either way there are people that want to change the situation as it was.
Asking such a black and white question then applying the result as winner takes all is so stupid it's criminal. -
@davesofthunder said in British Politics:
Funny though how he likes of Farage were lining up for another vote when they thought it was close but it's not OK the other way.
To be fair, Farage has consistently argued for referenda on Europe and has said he's pretty much OK with a second referendum on the final deal. He's never changed his mind and started arguing against a referendum and that Parliament only should decide - unlike many in the Remain camp who are now suddenly pro-referendum on EU matters.
The likes of Blair, Vince Cable and Chukka Umanna are now suggesting a 3rd referendum in 2-3 years time on the effect of the deal if there's a vote in favour of the deal in a second referendum.
Still taking people for idiots - no wonder Remain blew the campaign
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
Asking such a black and white question then applying the result as winner takes all is so stupid it's criminal.
The same black and white, winner takes all question approach was used in the 1974 referendum to join the EU - multi-generational issues and all.
Perhaps if people had got an opportunity to change the situation as it was after we joined by having referendums on the various treaty changes which impacted people lives (like most other EU countries did), we wouldn't be in this current situation.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
Asking such a black and white question then applying the result as winner takes all is so stupid it's criminal.
The same black and white, winner takes all question approach was used in the 1974 referendum to join the EU - multi-generational issues and all.
Perhaps if people had got an opportunity to change the situation as it was after we joined by having referendums on the various treaty changes which impacted people lives (like most other EU countries did), we wouldn't be in this current situation.
Without wishing to be pedantic, the 1974 referendum was whether to stay in or not rather than to join. At that time it all meant far less than it does now. The then EEC was little more than a trading alliance and a twitch in the trousers of a few wannabe Eurocrats. At the time I thought a referendum was a good thing. Let the people decide. But of course then I was young and naive and occasionally voted socialist. Being much older and more bitter and cynical I just cannot see why anyone thinks the people should decide on a single topic. A classic example being letting the people decide on the name of a new lifeboat (I think). The result? Boaty McBoatface.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
Being much older and more bitter and cynical I just cannot see why anyone thinks the people should decide on a single topic. A classic example being letting the people decide on the name of a new lifeboat (I think). The result? Boaty McBoatface.
You just disagreed with yourself? Boaty McBoatface is a shining example of "Single Topic Democracy works".
(A Research Ship by the way)
I see the Government ignored the People's Will on that particular topic. -
@kruse said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
Being much older and more bitter and cynical I just cannot see why anyone thinks the people should decide on a single topic. A classic example being letting the people decide on the name of a new lifeboat (I think). The result? Boaty McBoatface.
You just disagreed with yourself? Boaty McBoatface is a shining example of "Single Topic Democracy works".
(A Research Ship by the way)
I see the Government ignored the People's Will on that particular topic.Mate, I disagree with most people these days. However, good news for Blair et al, the word of the people can be ignored.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@kruse BTW, we’re you suggesting that Boaty McFuckface was a good outcome?
Yep - great outcome.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The then EEC was little more than a trading alliance and a twitch in the trousers of a few wannabe Eurocrats.
That's my point. In '74 they didn't know what the final deal was they were voting for - e.g the Euro (and having to pay to bail it out). Same argument used by those wanting a 2nd referendum.
Anyway, as the chines proverb says "May you live in interesting times"...
-
@victor-meldrew Not quite. We very much knew what we were voting for, just not what it might become 40 years later. In 2016 things were very much more complex.
Not that I think either referendum was a good thing, just that the circumstances were totally different.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew Not quite. We very much knew what we were voting for, just not what it might become 40 years later. In 2016 things were very much more complex.
Not that I think either referendum was a good thing, just that the circumstances were totally different.
No they werent. Both were black and white questions with uncertain outcomes.
-
Both were In or Out choices. We didn't know what the final deal would be or how it would impact the UK going forward in 1974 any more than we did 2016.
-
problem is with providing referendums to the general populace, plenty are able to be swayed into voting for things they really have no idea about and probably shouldnt actually be voting for, but thats democracy for you.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
Both were In or Out choices. We didn't know what the final deal would be or how it would impact the UK going forward in 1974 any more than we did 2016.
I would agree with the bolded bit but where I differ from your viewpoint is that firstly being out of the EEC was still very much a known quantity, whereas now, that is far from the case. Secondly the EEC as it was then was a much leaner, simpler organisation centred around trade. It was a lot easier to quantify the benefits, even for the non-politically minded. Today we have much more complexity, open borders, monetary union (broadly, though not UK), EU law, subsidies, quotas, an EU parliament - I could go on. And on. We are 40 years away from knowing how things are like outside the EU. Our former strongest trading partners now have new alliances, we have no substantial trading agreements outside the EU.
The ability of anyone to get their head round the complexities of stay or go now as opposed to 1974 is a huge difference.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
Nope.
Replace a well-paid, trained, skilled motivated worker with a cheaper, less skilled option and the re-work from errors and carelessness input to the system will not only reduce the overall output by reducing value-add, it will divert management resources and, worst of all, damage your customer base/reputation.
Actually the biggest issue with outsourcing is the ability to deal with issues which aren’t in the manual. Ie customer wants x, book doesn’t explain x ...
There is also an underlying element that people are more content to be told shit news about their contract from a guy in Doncaster than a guy in Mumbai
Which is why so many companies who outsourced to India brought it back onshore - it was costing them a fortune
So many? Got examples?
I do worry that the UK may become viewed as cheap Labour ....
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
Nope.
Replace a well-paid, trained, skilled motivated worker with a cheaper, less skilled option and the re-work from errors and carelessness input to the system will not only reduce the overall output by reducing value-add, it will divert management resources and, worst of all, damage your customer base/reputation.
Actually the biggest issue with outsourcing is the ability to deal with issues which aren’t in the manual. Ie customer wants x, book doesn’t explain x ...
There is also an underlying element that people are more content to be told shit news about their contract from a guy in Doncaster than a guy in Mumbai
Which is why so many companies who outsourced to India brought it back onshore - it was costing them a fortune
So many? Got examples?
I do worry that the UK may become viewed as cheap Labour ....
Unlikely when we pay all these bloody Kiwi IT geeks so much...
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
So many? Got examples?
Aviva, BT, LloydsTSB, Scandia, Barclays, Aegon, RBS, Bombardier Transport.... And that's only the businesses that were my clients. Two examples:
A life insurer moved pensions servicing to Mumbai based on an FTE cost of £350 a day v £500 a day in the UK (Mumbai cost included infrastructure & management). The actual cost, when things like actual training costs from a 50% retention rate, re-work, additional management time in the UK ran out at £520 a day. And that didn't include reputational cost - they only noticed that when they fell from 5th to 13th in the customer/industry rankings.
Major organisation outsourced invoice payment off-shore. And were then deluged by late-payment complaints, legal letters and court threats. After 12 months we calculated the overall, actual cost as being 20% above UK processing costs.
Anyway, enough management anecdotes.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
Actually the biggest issue with outsourcing is the ability to deal with issues which aren’t in the manual. Ie customer wants x, book doesn’t explain x ...
There is also an underlying element that people are more content to be told shit news about their contract from a guy in Doncaster than a guy in MumbaiI'd argue the biggest issue is management focussing on cost and not value/ customer service. There's one pension provider whose outsourced operations gets consistently high ratings from customers. They focus on service quality foremost with costs being secondary - it's about the same cost as in the UK.
The accent thing is fascinating. From the research I saw, it's less the accent than the cultural differences which customers pick up. One outsourcer, bizarrely, tried to alleviate this by getting their agents to bone up on the latest UK soap opera plotlines. (Yes, really)
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@jc said in British Politics:
Sorry Victor, but at the risk of derailing the conversation, you do know that if you wanted to increase productivity investing in people is the thing you wouldn’t do, don’t you? Given it is the ratio of value-added output to inputs, the lower your cost of inputs (usually through less or cheaper people) the better.
Nope.
Replace a well-paid, trained, skilled motivated worker with a cheaper, less skilled option and the re-work from errors and carelessness input to the system will not only reduce the overall output by reducing value-add, it will divert management resources and, worst of all, damage your customer base/reputation.
Which is why so many companies who outsourced to India brought it back onshore - it was costing them a fortune.
Sorry Victor, hadn’t got round to getting back to you. I’m interested in your “Nope”answer. Your last couple of paragraphs aren’t wrong, but they have nothing to do with what I said. I said, that “if you wanted to increase productivity investing in people is the thing you wouldn’t do”.
Now I think there are major flaws with using productivity as a meaningful measure of an economy’s health, in some part for the very reasons you give. But you introduced it.
Government statisticians generally use a measure called multi factor productivity (MFP) which is a pretty blunt instrument and it’s clear, productivity = output / labour inputs. To increase productivity you have to increase outputs or lower inputs. Increasing inputs will never increase productivity.
I understand that you’re arguing for increasing the outputs, but if you assume that, all things being equal, every firm is maximising its profit (and why wouldn’t they be in a capitalist model) then they would already be doing that to the best of their ability. It’s largely beyond their control, at least in comparison to the inputs, which they can control.
Anyway your argument isn’t really to do with classical productivity modelling. What you are arguing is actually something called Overall Labour Effectiveness, which is not really interesting to economists as it’s pretty much self evident.Productivity is another matter though. You probably won’t be surprised to know there are contentious, long running debates about it, notably a profound disagreement between Poms and Yanks about the exogeneity or endogeneity of natural rates of growth. Fascinating stuff.
-
@jc said in British Politics:
Sorry Victor, hadn’t got round to getting back to you. I’m interested in your “Nope”answer. Your last couple of paragraphs aren’t wrong, but they have nothing to do with what I said. I said, that “if you wanted to increase productivity investing in people is the thing you wouldn’t do”.
Now I think there are major flaws with using productivity as a meaningful measure of an economy’s health, in some part for the very reasons you give. But you introduced it.
Government statisticians generally use a measure called multi factor productivity (MFP) which is a pretty blunt instrument and it’s clear, productivity = output / labour inputs. To increase productivity you have to increase outputs or lower inputs. Increasing inputs will never increase productivity.
I understand that you’re arguing for increasing the outputs, but if you assume that, all things being equal, every firm is maximising its profit (and why wouldn’t they be in a capitalist model) then they would already be doing that to the best of their ability. It’s largely beyond their control, at least in comparison to the inputs, which they can control.
Anyway your argument isn’t really to do with classical productivity modelling. What you are arguing is actually something called Overall Labour Effectiveness, which is not really interesting to economists as it’s pretty much self evident.Productivity is another matter though. You probably won’t be surprised to know there are contentious, long running debates about it, notably a profound disagreement between Poms and Yanks about the exogeneity or endogeneity of natural rates of growth. Fascinating stuff.
@JC
I find this discussion about productivity fascinating. I recently bought a business and I am currently looking at productivity labour training , output/input and efficiencies.
I have bolded a bit in your post with I think must be false. I think you probably just used brevity to underline a concept, but I would be interested to see you expand on it so that it is accurate. Obviously increasing input can sometimes under certain conditions increase productivity?? If for example labor is your input and productivity is down because inefficiencies are caused by a lack of coverage or skillets, or even over stretching of resources causing costly mistakes or repeated work?I am sure your ideas are completely correct in a fully automated environment or mathematical modeling system. But when human inputs are included, which are inherently chaotic. Then things are not so simple, you have to take into account business culture, workplace morale, (due to lack of certain inputs). As a simple example I have been direcly involved in organisations where morale has been terrible because the manager was overworked and simply didnt get back to things on time, staff just gave up trying, another middle manager was employed, things started to happen morale increased and productivity skyrocketed.
And that ignores the obvious situation of bottlenecks, increasing the input into a system at the right location can eliminate bottlenecks that created lack of productivity upstream.
British Politics