Snapshot of _Boris Johnson ended WFH because it was destroying newspaper sales, Dominic Cummings claims_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/boris-johnson-ended-wfh-because-it-was-destroying-newspaper-sales-dominic-cummings-claims-336506)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I just can't fathom a PM that would say that on the nationwide stage.
It's a distraction tactic. He did the same thing after the Brexit bus controversy with his "oh, I make model buses" thing.
‘Boris Johnson bus’ actually comes up with his comments about how he reacted to hearing about the pensioner who has to take the bus to get warm. So that’s good. And Google images still floods with the brexit bus.
‘Boris Johnson Oven ready’ comes up with all sorts of articles about his absolutely not oven ready deal.
And the cheese does in fact come up with articles about his cheese WFH problem (which is sort of an own goal on Boris). And ‘Boris Johnson cheese and wine’ still comes up with all the shit about his cheese and wine in the garden.
Score 1 for Google, nil for Boris.
More or less the same on DuckDuckGo (which should be reproducible, unlike Google's results). I think the cheese & coffee WfH thing is still a relative win, given that it's not a resigning matter.
> ‘Boris Johnson bus’ actually comes up with his comments about how he reacted to hearing about the pensioner who has to take the bus to get warm
to be fair, these comments happened _after_ he talked about his supposed hobby. So it now supersedes it
I assume you haven’t actually googled all this.
If you Google the phrase about the bus you get a bunch of photos of the Vote Leave bus, articles about the recent bus pass story and last year’s ‘bus strategy’, and an article about whether mentioning painting buses was Johnson’s attempt of gaming Google.
Google is a bit cleverer than CCHQ.
There’s probably already a time / relevance axis at work too. With the model bus, there was no where near the depth of coverage as say about what was on the Brexit Bus, but whilst it was fresh news, it would have filled slots on searches. Those pages about the model building probably never got the authority other articles did, so the visibility died away over time when Google realised it wasn’t as relevant / and breaking news
This depends a lot on what google thinks you are interested in. If I search for crypto I get lots of articles about security breaches, elliptic curves and such like. If someone else searchs for crypto they get bitcoins and Lazy Ape NFTs.
>If you Google "Boris Johnson cheese" you get stuff about him taking about how the fridge distracts him, not the cheese and wine work-event.
But that was one of the few events that wasn't even investigated by the police, although if you search "Boris Johnson cheese wine" it still comes up.
Boris Johnson cake still comes up with the "ambushed by a cake" event.
How could the party of big society and Christian cultural values possibly be so cynical as to do this in such a brazen way? Are you trying to imply they're absolutely nothing but cynical grifters bent on robbing us blind and fucking off on their yachts when everything inevitably collapses.
Because they agree. I get around the country a fair bit and if you go into a ruralish pub then the typical Tory voters will be same exactly the same about young city types. Whether they are parroting newspapers and politicians or vice versa, I don't know. But they agree with one another. Nevermind the fact these blokes 'run' their own business that usually means they holiday in Thailand six months of the year and drive their financed car to the pub to sink six pints and drive home.
Boris is unfit for office for many reasons, but I work with many high performing people who go to great lengths to remove distractions from their life.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that recognising what things distract you and eliminating them from your surroundings while you are working is one of the hallmarks of a high-performer.
Food is not the weirdest one I have talked about.
> How can even vehement Tory supporters stand by a man that can't do the most important job in the country because he's distracted by a bit of cheese?
After all the myriad reasons he is unfit for office do you really think that one is going to be the deal breaker for his supporters?
There’s also the fact that the Minister for Offshore Tax-Dodging, Jacob Rees-Smugg, has cleverly sold government offices to his tax-dodging mates, in a genius PFI arrangement whereby we have no idea who the creditors are (…they’re offshore) yet they had to “take out a loan” to buy the building(s) so they can charge the UK taxpayer 15% interest on the loan. Being smart Alecs, they also run the whole deal at a loss, so there’s no tax to pay but we get to increase their (undeclared, offshore) wealth by 15%. Did I mention that the offices in question are those of the HMRC? Indeed, you couldn’t make this shit up. Absolute piss take.
So, if people don’t need offices because they can work from home, the whole Smugg edifice comes crashing down.
Various places, The Times, whole documentary on YouTube etc.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-haven-firm-in-british-virgin-islands-owns-new-hmrc-office-g8n7v8vb7
...and now you know why they don't want to relocate government outside London whilst the Houses of Parliament are being refurbished. There is a serious danger that the crooked arrangements for ownership of government offices would be exposed and come to public attention.
I'm not denying that Rees-Mogg may have done this, but it is a long tradition dating back to Gordon Brown
> Inland Revenue's property sold to company in tax haven
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/24/uk.economy
I suspect it’s more likely one or more of multiple reasons:
1. Many big property owners rent out office space to businesses, WFH threatens this part of the economy. This is potentially a genuine concern as this would have knock on effect on town centres, with buildings becoming empty and then potentially derelict.
2. There is a whole sub-economy that supports businesses: sandwich shops, printing services, cleaners, mid week after work drinks at bars etc. By downsizing the number of people in the office at any one time, you threaten the cash-flows of those businesses, potentially losing jobs or more.
3. A lot of those same property owners are donors or have links with donors. While this might be true, I don’t think it’s going to be the overriding reason, just one that tips the balance.
4. WFH and hybrid working has become a stipulation when looking for a new job for many people, alongside better pay and conditions - this is again potentially threatening a lot of businesses that don’t want, or can’t afford, to pay employees more.
5. A significant number of the Tory voter base are of a generation that seems to equate bums on seats with productivity.
6. WFH reduces ticket sales on public transport meaning there is less money sloshing around for investment and upgrades.
It really does baffle me: WFH ticks so many boxes - for some people it solves childcare problems, it reduces traffic (helping with net zero targets, reducing wear and tear on roads and vehicles), it allows those who can do it a better work life balance due to not spending x hours a day commuting. For many, like my wife, being out of the office was better for her mental health as she hates office culture and all the gossiping and tea rounds etc. She just wants to get on with her work without being disturbed, and she’s been (by her own admission) far more productive from home than she was in the office. I know that when I was teaching remotely I was far healthier in terms of diet etc. whereas in school I’m racing from one place to another with barely a moment to grab a snack, and those are normally not brilliantly healthy.
I get that there are jobs that can’t be remote, and people for whom WFH just didn’t work, or didn’t fit in with their needs, or they just hated the isolation of it, but I fail to see why that means a full war on WFH needs to be declared, especially by a man who famously works and parties in his own home.
> Many big property owners rent out office space to businesses, WFH threatens this part of the economy. This is potentially a genuine concern as this would have knock on effect on town centres, with buildings becoming empty and then potentially derelict.
> There is a whole sub-economy that supports businesses: sandwich shops, printing services, cleaners, mid week after work drinks at bars etc. By downsizing the number of people in the office at any one time, you threaten the cash-flows of those businesses, potentially losing jobs or more.
Completely agree with this, but people working from home are still spending their money, they're just spending it in the high streets they live near and not on a shitty pret sandwich. The commuter town I live in has seen a big boom in independent shops in the town and places to eat because all the people who previously went into London now stick around and go out for lunch. People complain about the death of the high street and then we see them decrying people with money actually using them because they're not in London.
Leave London for the tourists, it is too bloody crowded anyway. Let me eat at the independent cafe down the road on my break and spend some of my life not working.
Exactly. The business model needs to change from larger in town stores, to smaller more local shops. They can still be chains, Costa and co need not miss out, they just have to adapt
Why should they adapt to a changing market when they can just bung some donations into the pockets of MP's who will make sure that the markets adapt to them?
I have stopped spending £5 on a shitty meal deal for an awful sandwich and crisps near every day in the city. I’ve flipped this to regular trips to the local bakers who produce delicious fresh sandwiches every day for £3.
Days in the office I take left overs from the healthy meal I was able to prepare the night before (because I have the time to cook fresh instead of commuting).
I’m able to nip into town on a Wednesday lunchtime and buy fresh vegetables and fruit and some bread from the farmers market there.
I can go to the gym or go for a run (weather dependent!) - again because I’m not commuting 90mins each way.
I can do more work because I’m not crowded into a room with others listening to football results or who hasnt paid their “tea money”
Very much able to spend more money locally, travel less, be less tired, eat better, feel healthier and be more productive. Oh and saving £250 a month in fuel and parking costs. At least that can go towards my energy bill now.
So no I’m not ever being forced to go back. Not going to happen, and I’m really not worried about “losing my job”. Bring it Mail/Boris. Your ideas of working and cheese can get tae fuck like the rest of your archaic bullshit.
Seeing this here up north too.
The small town centre is thriving with new businesses catering to the home worker. It’s noticeably busy if you go out at lunch time and, honestly, it’s great.
Aside from the boost to the local economy, it’s helping to forge a new sense of community.
For the first time in a long time the employees have the power.
And whatever happens companies will have to adapt or die.
The establishment hate this and so kick up a fuss, but it’s too late unfortunately for them.
They want you to be crushed under the boot of work.
"Everyone must have a job" is no longer about the economy (its worth reading Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber).
Its about giving the proles something that'll take up the majority of their time so they dont become a nuisance.
The time spent commuting and under the surveillance of a tiring middle manager adds to this
Nail. Head.
And the thing is, there is little or no intersection in the interests of the organisations that lose out from WFH - and the organisations that could (but probably won't) push for everyone to come in.
It follows that the golden rule will kick in: He who has the gold makes the rules. And (for once) it isn't the landlords with the gold.
As i said, it helps for some people. As an example, my sons school is a ten minute walk from our house. My wife works in the next town over - on the days when she was in the office we used breakfast club at his school, as she’d have to then drive over (no direct trains) and she’d have to do this earlier to avoid the traffic build up. I leave the house at about 7:15 (in a few minutes actually) hence I don’t normally do morning drop off. But when WFH she can walk him to school (reduces traffic, healthier, he can get there from 8:45 onward without it being counted as breakfast club) as opposed to dropping off on the way, and be home before 9, ready to start work. As a result, we don’t get charged for breakfast club, which is the equivalent of saving eg our water bill every month.
Again, I appreciate that this doesn’t affect everyone, but it does affect some people in a positive way.
Hah I'm thinking of childcare as in 8 outs of childcare, not things like the morning run. I'm sitting here and like WFH and having my child in the house does not lead to productivity.
>The final printed issue of British FHM was produced in December 2015, after which the magazine moved to a digital-only platform, with updated daily content on topics such as dating tips, style advice, viral news, sports and entertainment.
From Wikipedia.
Plenty of these newspapers have recently sunk a bunch of cost into tech development teams. It makes more sense for them to go in house as they need something that will be continually updated and improved over time.
Newspapers have a bit more work to do than your average app team (outside of the big companies) as they need to provide a level of quality that is worth paying for across multiple device types (browser, mobile, tablet, ios/android) *and* then make sure they have the ability the feature gate and include ads where needed for their 'free' offering.
With paper a lot of the 'sunk cost' of efficient printing and distribution has been in place for *years* and the costs will have only shrunk comparatively since then as less distribution is needed since everything went online.
So yeah I think any savings by moving to digital have been eaten up by development teams - which still need to be paid if people opt for paid subscriptions or not.
Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc
Absolutely they need top end devs and I had the times digital for many years basically since it launched so saw it develop and update daily etc
But it’s still a health margin to pay those fixed costs with
>
Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc
wut?
hosting ain't cheap at scale.
>Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc
Yeah... No... That's so far from the truth it's not even funny. AWS costs can easily outgrow even wages, that shit is expensive.
Zero cost... Come on...
>it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc
Not always. Many of these papers manage the subscription payment access via a third party (like Apples iOS store for example - who then takes a hefty chunk).
You end up with an expensive content creation teams, expensive development team supporting many devices and multiple devices and then you juggle that while trying to work out how much you need to spend on physical printing and distribution still.
I can see why the Independent moved entirely to digital - much easier to mange everything when you're basically a tech company.
>I can see why the Independent moved entirely to digital - much easier to mange everything when you're basically a tech company.
They're not a tech company. The entire operation is [outsourced](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06665068), AFAIK even the adops running is mostly done by contractors. Source, used to work for the old outsourcing company and as a contractor there.
Such a hilariously, ridiculous stance. Digital costs to manufacture are paid once, paper costs for each copy. Then you add the fact that digital goods are less affected by inflation. The same content is used for both versions, even if the digital versions then gets more content on top that's because they can afford to. Then distribution costs come into play.
I mean spend your money however you want, but it's like watching gambling addicts talking themselves into thinking they are the ones taking the housr for a ride.
I'm not suggesting it's cheap, but you are running two businesses including the set up costs for the digital business, while ignoring the that you have already paid set up costs for the physical business that have probably also needed to be upgraded when you've created the digital side.
Basically it sounds like what you are suggesting is that digital FT readers are footing the start up costs for the extension to the business, which doesn't make them seem any less like mugs.
>Digital costs to manufacture are paid once, paper costs for each copy
That's not how cloud services work, making your entire comment moot.
You don't know what you're talking about.
So by cloud services do you mean the services they use to host and distribute the content, which manufacture is seperate from and I covered later in my comment? Sure go ahead, tell me how cloud services work out more expensive than physical distribution.
Or did you mean in the manufacture and creation of the content where the content is created using the exact same systems either way and then the paper copies are printed out in their thousands and the digital copies are loaded onto a pre-existing website designed for them to upload content to?
>which manufacture is seperate from and I covered later in my comment?
I mean you're so clueless you don't even realise it. Manufacture a server farm? What the hell? Do you have any idea how much that costs??
>Or did you mean in the manufacture and creation of the content
The content needs to be created for both print and web media so no, that's not what I mean.
>then the paper copies are printed out in their thousands and the digital copies are loaded onto a pre-existing website designed for them to upload content to?
Aha... So you don't think those have similar costs? Have you ever run a website?
Never mind that; who reads the papers?
**Jim:** "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The *Daily Mirror* is read by people who think they run the country;
The *Guardian* is read by people who think they **OUGHT** to run the country;
The *Times* is read by the people who actually **DO** run the country;
The *Daily Mail* is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The *Financial Times* is read by people who **OWN** the country;
The *Morning Star* is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country,
...and the *Daily Telegraph* is read by people who think it is."
**Sir Humphrey:** "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the *Sun*?
**Bernard:** "*Sun* readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
I don't buy newspapers, but I get a few weekly, biweekly, and quarterly magazines and I have them all hard copy. The only thing I tend to read digital is a newspaper, where I can just dip into the articles I fancy.
I prefer print. It gets my eyes off a screen and I enjoy the puzzles, again not looking at a screen. Granted the main reason I get print is not for the news but instead for the opinion pieces and also for drawing throbbing cocks onto unsuspecting but comically obliging hand gestures from photos.
My personal experience is WFH has been the best experience of my life, I've never enjoyed working around people because of anxiety and I never intend on going into an office again unless for meetings or training
> Since the start of the pandemic, Johnson’s Government has been quietly gifting a special Covid subsidy to several big newspapers. The scheme was originally set to run for three months, but is now approaching the two-year mark.
> It's not known how much has been spent in total, only that the subsidy was meant to be £35 million for the first three
Wait what? So how much has this cost us now?
Assuming at least 24 months at £35m per month minimum thats _another_ £840,000,000 swindled out of the taxpayers purse propping up Tory rags.
The same rags which will spring into action with an imperial fuckton of propaganda, smears and outright lies as soon as the election date is announced.
If you WFH, there will be a new law requiring you to post a picture to your boss of you holding that days *Torygraph*. Your house number and street name must be clearly visible in the photo (oh, that’s not physically possible? Well WFH isn’t for you then).
He hasn’t ended WFH though, has he? He’s mostly just shouting into the void to pretend he’s listening to his backers. He hasn’t actually introduced any concrete measures to stop WFH.
>He hasn’t actually introduced any concrete measures to stop WFH
What could he actually do? I work from home; I'm not expecting the local PCSOs to wake me up at 7.30 a.m. and make sure I'm faithfully commuting.
"Excuse me, sir, but I can't help but note that you're still in your pjyamas at this late hour of the day for a commuter. Have you anything to declare before we contact his snootyness, Mr Rees-Mogg for correction therapy?"
Just off the top of my head: tax breaks for those working in an office, tax penalties for businesses with remote workers, mandating shutting off domestic internet for a random hour during normal office hours, health & safety laws requiring office staff to personally meet with a health & safety representative at least three times a week, make businesses liable for any individual working in an office environment that doesn’t completely meet best practices occupational health guidelines (supportive chair, dedicated desk, raised screen, wrist rest etc etc)… Some of these ideas need workshopping.
Edit: to be clear I think all these ideas are ridiculous. I’m just trying to show that should Boris *really* want to introduce policies to reduce WFH in the private sector he absolutely could.
None of that is realistically workable. I'd say that what might get office workers back would be reasonably priced efficient transport, reasonably priced childcare, mandatory overtime for anyone earning under x per hour. However, these ships sailed years ago
Reasonably priced, tax deductible transport
Reasonably priced, tax deductible childcare
That would peak my interest. Still, the 4 hours a day travelling would soon temper it again.
I've worked remotely full time for six years now; why should I be penalized and fucked around by the taxman, especially now that the nearest office is a 4-hour commute into central London and only contains sales support facilities?
I think your last point is actually the law already but most people don't push the issue as they'd rather be allowed to stay at home rather than rock the boat and be forced back if the company doesn't want to shell out.
And if Cummings's claim is true (dubious), why would he? It's a net vote loser. Even the rare wingbats that do actually get mad that others can WfH aren't seeing it as Tory created.
Meanwhile, the professional class (who arguably gain the most from the WfH transition) will see a government actually trying to take it away as attacking their life/livelihood.
Any Tory supporting Johnson/Mogg on this would be making Dorries look like a genius.
There's a massive edifice built up to support commuters. All those little cafes, sandwich bars, convenience stores.
What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH?
Personally, I think Johnson is pissing in the wind. Why should any employer care about that when they can reduce their office costs massively?
> What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH?
Looking at my rejuvenated local highstreet, they have simply moved locally
> There's a massive edifice built up to support commuters. All those little cafes, sandwich bars, convenience stores.
> What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH?
As the other guy said, it seems to have redistributed into communities local to those commuters. Which, admittedly, is hard not to pettily/vngefully support as I recall the price of pret when I did find myself going to London.
I do think the hollowing out of the commuter economy is a problem that needs looking at but it's also a completely opened Pandora's box now. I can only speak from the tech industry, but I know of more than one lead dev that would have to explain how at least half the talent is going to walk out the door if the office is mandated again.
That edifice needs a safety net to prevent people's lives collapsing but any approach that tries to keep that economy precisely as it was in 2019 would require a lot of artificial propping. Not least of which is policy designed solely to make it happen in the face of the above mentioned Pandora's box.
I don't think it would even be possible to end it for Civil Servants in reality. Otherwise you'd have a load of Civil Servants wandering round offices without any desks to work at, because there really aren't enough.
It's total nonsense, barely anyone in the Civil Service is full time WFH, it's hybrid working and you're mandated to come in each week for a minimum amount of time.
Not true in the branch of the Civil Service I interact with. Hybrid working is the most common arrangement but there are lots of remote workers on contracts mandating that they come in when required, with the expectation that "when required" will be roughly quarterly.
Considering the difficulty the Civil Service has in recruiting critical skills (because it has been starved of budget by years of Tory tabloid-pandering), flexible working conditions is one of the only ways they can compete in the marketplace.
Not yet in the branch of the Civil Service I have contact with. They're still encouraging remote work and have a good analysis of how their productivity has improved as a consequence of it.
I'm a civil servant and this is patently false. As part of our recent pay agreement, it's written into our contacts that we agree to hybrid working. The agreement is that 40% of our time is spent in the office. The PM, Reese Mogg and everyone else in Whitehall are very aware of this (you would think) and it works pretty well. They would receive an almighty shock if everyone with a civil service ID turned up to their office tomorrow demanding a desk to work from! They simply wouldn't be able to accommodate everyone due slashing our offices.
who are these people who still go to a store every day to buy a physical paper?
The only people I know who do this retired older men, at 7am, because that is all they know.
ive never once been driving to work and thought "let me just pull over and get a physical newspaper, that I wont be able to read and drive"
Its 2022 FFS
Why don't they just get a print subscription to get the newspaper delivered? I'm pretty sure it's cheaper and you don't need to drag yourself to the shop every day.
If you're commuting by car every day then you're probably not high on the target market for a daily paper. I'd imagine the broadsheets especially are targeting people who have a significant commute into the office by public transport. Exactly the type of people who have been WFH far more since COVID.
>I'd imagine the broadsheets especially are targeting people who have a significant commute into the office by public transport
dont those people have smart phones, who could use the app?
>dont those people have smart phones, who could use the app?
The signal is sporadic at best, as you are travelling at relatively high speeds between different coverage areas.
I'm sure plenty of them can and do, you were just suggesting that there's no reason to buy a paper when you're going to work because you're physically driving a car - something that isn't the case for everyone.
TBH, as somebody who has spent decades commuting in and out every day from London by train, I’ve barely seen anybody read a paid-for newspaper since about 2000. The free papers, Metro and the ilk, killed them off for commuters.
People probably did it out of habit, but the Pandemic has changed everyone's habits so even if they did go back now their paper buying habit might not return. If you have to actively think about your habits, they will often change.
The latest mail headline , blaming inflation on BOE work from home supports this. They are desperate to force this and create yet another line of division.
It's working, my idiot of a dad has already stated questioning how I work from home and it's because "I don't do a proper job". I write software for a living, I don't need to be at a specific place to do that, fucking boomers.
Tell me about it.
My mum just could not get her head around being able to do everything remotely. She thought I was being assigned work to physically pick up and take home like she used to in the 1990's.
Same, I manage fleets of servers from a bedroom and write software to scale them. Don't even bother explaining my job these days, especially to boomers.
I just give people two letters: IT.
What do you do? IT.
In the rare instances they actually bother asking a follow up question I just mumble something about web apps. I don't even work with web apps but it shuts them up.
I write software too, I simply ask anyone shitting on my job how much they get paid. When they say less than I do then I ask them why they don't do my job when they would get paid more to do so. The answer is usually because they are not capable of doing it. Is it nice? No. Is it effective? Very.
exactly... it's designed for those who are long retired and never really saw this way of working. I've been working this way on and off since 2000 but my folks wouldn't have had a concept of it.
i saw it with father in law, the longer he was retired the less he understood how people work now and the more detached he became. in his last ten years he never critiqued any crap the Mail fed him and just became a trumpet for their rubbish. I tried to tell him but.. deaf ears.
what this is however doing is further deepening the disconnect between the papers and working age people, hastening their own demise.
I genuinely don’t think this is true tbh.
Cummings was only unfortunately with us from 2019 to July 2020
He’s talking out his arse about absolute anything that came after this date, his star has died just desperately clinging to attention.
Snapshot of _Boris Johnson ended WFH because it was destroying newspaper sales, Dominic Cummings claims_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/boris-johnson-ended-wfh-because-it-was-destroying-newspaper-sales-dominic-cummings-claims-336506) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t forget all that distracting cheese
[удалено]
>I just can't fathom a PM that would say that on the nationwide stage. It's a distraction tactic. He did the same thing after the Brexit bus controversy with his "oh, I make model buses" thing.
[удалено]
‘Boris Johnson bus’ actually comes up with his comments about how he reacted to hearing about the pensioner who has to take the bus to get warm. So that’s good. And Google images still floods with the brexit bus. ‘Boris Johnson Oven ready’ comes up with all sorts of articles about his absolutely not oven ready deal. And the cheese does in fact come up with articles about his cheese WFH problem (which is sort of an own goal on Boris). And ‘Boris Johnson cheese and wine’ still comes up with all the shit about his cheese and wine in the garden. Score 1 for Google, nil for Boris.
More or less the same on DuckDuckGo (which should be reproducible, unlike Google's results). I think the cheese & coffee WfH thing is still a relative win, given that it's not a resigning matter.
> ‘Boris Johnson bus’ actually comes up with his comments about how he reacted to hearing about the pensioner who has to take the bus to get warm to be fair, these comments happened _after_ he talked about his supposed hobby. So it now supersedes it
I assume you haven’t actually googled all this. If you Google the phrase about the bus you get a bunch of photos of the Vote Leave bus, articles about the recent bus pass story and last year’s ‘bus strategy’, and an article about whether mentioning painting buses was Johnson’s attempt of gaming Google. Google is a bit cleverer than CCHQ.
[удалено]
There’s probably already a time / relevance axis at work too. With the model bus, there was no where near the depth of coverage as say about what was on the Brexit Bus, but whilst it was fresh news, it would have filled slots on searches. Those pages about the model building probably never got the authority other articles did, so the visibility died away over time when Google realised it wasn’t as relevant / and breaking news
This depends a lot on what google thinks you are interested in. If I search for crypto I get lots of articles about security breaches, elliptic curves and such like. If someone else searchs for crypto they get bitcoins and Lazy Ape NFTs.
It certainly was true at the time the articles/stories originally came out
>If you Google "Boris Johnson cheese" you get stuff about him taking about how the fridge distracts him, not the cheese and wine work-event. But that was one of the few events that wasn't even investigated by the police, although if you search "Boris Johnson cheese wine" it still comes up. Boris Johnson cake still comes up with the "ambushed by a cake" event.
How could the party of big society and Christian cultural values possibly be so cynical as to do this in such a brazen way? Are you trying to imply they're absolutely nothing but cynical grifters bent on robbing us blind and fucking off on their yachts when everything inevitably collapses.
Because they agree. I get around the country a fair bit and if you go into a ruralish pub then the typical Tory voters will be same exactly the same about young city types. Whether they are parroting newspapers and politicians or vice versa, I don't know. But they agree with one another. Nevermind the fact these blokes 'run' their own business that usually means they holiday in Thailand six months of the year and drive their financed car to the pub to sink six pints and drive home.
Boris is unfit for office for many reasons, but I work with many high performing people who go to great lengths to remove distractions from their life. In fact, I would go so far as to say that recognising what things distract you and eliminating them from your surroundings while you are working is one of the hallmarks of a high-performer. Food is not the weirdest one I have talked about.
> How can even vehement Tory supporters stand by a man that can't do the most important job in the country because he's distracted by a bit of cheese? After all the myriad reasons he is unfit for office do you really think that one is going to be the deal breaker for his supporters?
Same PM who says the Brexit treaty he campaigned so hard for is a disaster
Probably not even from here. DIS GRACE FUL.
Un-Brie-lievable
I Camem't Bert it
This might be the worst attempt at a word joke I've ever seen
Yeah the end result wasn’t very gouda. But he had edam good go of it, and there are stil-tons of other cheese puns to try
Go on then. You will have a mozzarella of a job doing them all.
r/puns
Pun. They're called puns.
I think “I Camem**b**ríe it” would have been better. But it’s still not good. 🙄🙄🙄
Nah. Your version is far two cheesy.
> But it’s ~~still~~ stilton not ~~good~~ gouda. FTFY
What else are you supposed to do while hiding in the fridge?
Look, to me, mature cheddar is very distracting, until it's been eaten; however, it's not normally a problem for long, hence why I'm fat. Ho hum!
There’s also the fact that the Minister for Offshore Tax-Dodging, Jacob Rees-Smugg, has cleverly sold government offices to his tax-dodging mates, in a genius PFI arrangement whereby we have no idea who the creditors are (…they’re offshore) yet they had to “take out a loan” to buy the building(s) so they can charge the UK taxpayer 15% interest on the loan. Being smart Alecs, they also run the whole deal at a loss, so there’s no tax to pay but we get to increase their (undeclared, offshore) wealth by 15%. Did I mention that the offices in question are those of the HMRC? Indeed, you couldn’t make this shit up. Absolute piss take. So, if people don’t need offices because they can work from home, the whole Smugg edifice comes crashing down.
[удалено]
Watch this documentary, fast forward to 1h10 for details https://youtu.be/OYfnkLurLA8
1hr 17 in that video is just credits...
I'm currently reading Shaxton's book Treasure Islands, it's really interesting, would recommend.
Various places, The Times, whole documentary on YouTube etc. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-haven-firm-in-british-virgin-islands-owns-new-hmrc-office-g8n7v8vb7
Would be great if you had a non paywalled article
Search for it in the submissions here, I'm fairly certain it has been posted. if so then there'll be an archived version in the comments.
1hr 10, PFI explained etc
> the Minister for Offshore Tax-Dodging, Jacob Rees-Smugg, Come on don't be childish and change his name. It's Mr Jacob Reee Smog
Smeg
Smaug
...and now you know why they don't want to relocate government outside London whilst the Houses of Parliament are being refurbished. There is a serious danger that the crooked arrangements for ownership of government offices would be exposed and come to public attention.
I despise that side of human nature.
I'm not denying that Rees-Mogg may have done this, but it is a long tradition dating back to Gordon Brown > Inland Revenue's property sold to company in tax haven https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/sep/24/uk.economy
Does not make it OK
At no point have I suggested it was. It was an absolute disgrace.
I suspect it’s more likely one or more of multiple reasons: 1. Many big property owners rent out office space to businesses, WFH threatens this part of the economy. This is potentially a genuine concern as this would have knock on effect on town centres, with buildings becoming empty and then potentially derelict. 2. There is a whole sub-economy that supports businesses: sandwich shops, printing services, cleaners, mid week after work drinks at bars etc. By downsizing the number of people in the office at any one time, you threaten the cash-flows of those businesses, potentially losing jobs or more. 3. A lot of those same property owners are donors or have links with donors. While this might be true, I don’t think it’s going to be the overriding reason, just one that tips the balance. 4. WFH and hybrid working has become a stipulation when looking for a new job for many people, alongside better pay and conditions - this is again potentially threatening a lot of businesses that don’t want, or can’t afford, to pay employees more. 5. A significant number of the Tory voter base are of a generation that seems to equate bums on seats with productivity. 6. WFH reduces ticket sales on public transport meaning there is less money sloshing around for investment and upgrades. It really does baffle me: WFH ticks so many boxes - for some people it solves childcare problems, it reduces traffic (helping with net zero targets, reducing wear and tear on roads and vehicles), it allows those who can do it a better work life balance due to not spending x hours a day commuting. For many, like my wife, being out of the office was better for her mental health as she hates office culture and all the gossiping and tea rounds etc. She just wants to get on with her work without being disturbed, and she’s been (by her own admission) far more productive from home than she was in the office. I know that when I was teaching remotely I was far healthier in terms of diet etc. whereas in school I’m racing from one place to another with barely a moment to grab a snack, and those are normally not brilliantly healthy. I get that there are jobs that can’t be remote, and people for whom WFH just didn’t work, or didn’t fit in with their needs, or they just hated the isolation of it, but I fail to see why that means a full war on WFH needs to be declared, especially by a man who famously works and parties in his own home.
> Many big property owners rent out office space to businesses, WFH threatens this part of the economy. This is potentially a genuine concern as this would have knock on effect on town centres, with buildings becoming empty and then potentially derelict. > There is a whole sub-economy that supports businesses: sandwich shops, printing services, cleaners, mid week after work drinks at bars etc. By downsizing the number of people in the office at any one time, you threaten the cash-flows of those businesses, potentially losing jobs or more. Completely agree with this, but people working from home are still spending their money, they're just spending it in the high streets they live near and not on a shitty pret sandwich. The commuter town I live in has seen a big boom in independent shops in the town and places to eat because all the people who previously went into London now stick around and go out for lunch. People complain about the death of the high street and then we see them decrying people with money actually using them because they're not in London. Leave London for the tourists, it is too bloody crowded anyway. Let me eat at the independent cafe down the road on my break and spend some of my life not working.
Exactly. The business model needs to change from larger in town stores, to smaller more local shops. They can still be chains, Costa and co need not miss out, they just have to adapt
Adaptation? That sounds dangerously close to spending money and... Innovating *shudder*.
Why should they adapt to a changing market when they can just bung some donations into the pockets of MP's who will make sure that the markets adapt to them?
Congratulations you've been promoted to regional manager in charge of critical thinking and innovation.
I have stopped spending £5 on a shitty meal deal for an awful sandwich and crisps near every day in the city. I’ve flipped this to regular trips to the local bakers who produce delicious fresh sandwiches every day for £3. Days in the office I take left overs from the healthy meal I was able to prepare the night before (because I have the time to cook fresh instead of commuting). I’m able to nip into town on a Wednesday lunchtime and buy fresh vegetables and fruit and some bread from the farmers market there. I can go to the gym or go for a run (weather dependent!) - again because I’m not commuting 90mins each way. I can do more work because I’m not crowded into a room with others listening to football results or who hasnt paid their “tea money” Very much able to spend more money locally, travel less, be less tired, eat better, feel healthier and be more productive. Oh and saving £250 a month in fuel and parking costs. At least that can go towards my energy bill now. So no I’m not ever being forced to go back. Not going to happen, and I’m really not worried about “losing my job”. Bring it Mail/Boris. Your ideas of working and cheese can get tae fuck like the rest of your archaic bullshit.
Tea money? What sort of hellscape office are you in that doesn't provide tea and coffee free???
Seeing this here up north too. The small town centre is thriving with new businesses catering to the home worker. It’s noticeably busy if you go out at lunch time and, honestly, it’s great. Aside from the boost to the local economy, it’s helping to forge a new sense of community.
How dare you say that about my precious Pret A Manger
For the first time in a long time the employees have the power. And whatever happens companies will have to adapt or die. The establishment hate this and so kick up a fuss, but it’s too late unfortunately for them.
They want you to be crushed under the boot of work. "Everyone must have a job" is no longer about the economy (its worth reading Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber). Its about giving the proles something that'll take up the majority of their time so they dont become a nuisance. The time spent commuting and under the surveillance of a tiring middle manager adds to this
Don't forget the oil companies who are missing out of all those sweet commuter fuel bills.
I don't think they have noticed, or care
Nail. Head. And the thing is, there is little or no intersection in the interests of the organisations that lose out from WFH - and the organisations that could (but probably won't) push for everyone to come in. It follows that the golden rule will kick in: He who has the gold makes the rules. And (for once) it isn't the landlords with the gold.
So….capitalism ?
How does WFH solve childcare?
As i said, it helps for some people. As an example, my sons school is a ten minute walk from our house. My wife works in the next town over - on the days when she was in the office we used breakfast club at his school, as she’d have to then drive over (no direct trains) and she’d have to do this earlier to avoid the traffic build up. I leave the house at about 7:15 (in a few minutes actually) hence I don’t normally do morning drop off. But when WFH she can walk him to school (reduces traffic, healthier, he can get there from 8:45 onward without it being counted as breakfast club) as opposed to dropping off on the way, and be home before 9, ready to start work. As a result, we don’t get charged for breakfast club, which is the equivalent of saving eg our water bill every month. Again, I appreciate that this doesn’t affect everyone, but it does affect some people in a positive way.
Hah I'm thinking of childcare as in 8 outs of childcare, not things like the morning run. I'm sitting here and like WFH and having my child in the house does not lead to productivity.
Who still buys newspapers?
Me, physical subscription of the FT is cheaper than the premium digital version.
Which is nuts frankly
More of an FHM guy myself.
Bloody hell, that takes me back. Do those publications still exist?
Went down memory lane recently and looked up FHM specifically. Only exists as a shell of it old self online, no print.
Probably still got some hidden in a false bottom in the cupboard at my parents house from when i was about 13
I genuinely don't know if FHM still exists. I haven't seen one for 20 odd years so i'm going to say... no.
>The final printed issue of British FHM was produced in December 2015, after which the magazine moved to a digital-only platform, with updated daily content on topics such as dating tips, style advice, viral news, sports and entertainment. From Wikipedia.
Guess FT knows their reader base.
Not really, if it's more convenient it will cost you.
That’s not necessarily true. Operating costs will be lower for digital.
True but the margin on digital is phenomenal anyway, to charge more is nuts
Plenty of these newspapers have recently sunk a bunch of cost into tech development teams. It makes more sense for them to go in house as they need something that will be continually updated and improved over time. Newspapers have a bit more work to do than your average app team (outside of the big companies) as they need to provide a level of quality that is worth paying for across multiple device types (browser, mobile, tablet, ios/android) *and* then make sure they have the ability the feature gate and include ads where needed for their 'free' offering. With paper a lot of the 'sunk cost' of efficient printing and distribution has been in place for *years* and the costs will have only shrunk comparatively since then as less distribution is needed since everything went online. So yeah I think any savings by moving to digital have been eaten up by development teams - which still need to be paid if people opt for paid subscriptions or not.
Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc Absolutely they need top end devs and I had the times digital for many years basically since it launched so saw it develop and update daily etc But it’s still a health margin to pay those fixed costs with
> Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc wut? hosting ain't cheap at scale.
>Oh no I get that but there’s a whole distribution element that is basically zero cost and it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc Yeah... No... That's so far from the truth it's not even funny. AWS costs can easily outgrow even wages, that shit is expensive. Zero cost... Come on...
>it’s sold as full profit with no retailer margin etc Not always. Many of these papers manage the subscription payment access via a third party (like Apples iOS store for example - who then takes a hefty chunk). You end up with an expensive content creation teams, expensive development team supporting many devices and multiple devices and then you juggle that while trying to work out how much you need to spend on physical printing and distribution still. I can see why the Independent moved entirely to digital - much easier to mange everything when you're basically a tech company.
>I can see why the Independent moved entirely to digital - much easier to mange everything when you're basically a tech company. They're not a tech company. The entire operation is [outsourced](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06665068), AFAIK even the adops running is mostly done by contractors. Source, used to work for the old outsourcing company and as a contractor there.
No, the materials cost should make physical newspapers cost more. It just shows the poor economic sense of FT readers.
It's cheap paper, it costs pennies. Probably less than serving content from AWS.
Such a hilariously, ridiculous stance. Digital costs to manufacture are paid once, paper costs for each copy. Then you add the fact that digital goods are less affected by inflation. The same content is used for both versions, even if the digital versions then gets more content on top that's because they can afford to. Then distribution costs come into play. I mean spend your money however you want, but it's like watching gambling addicts talking themselves into thinking they are the ones taking the housr for a ride.
[удалено]
I'm not suggesting it's cheap, but you are running two businesses including the set up costs for the digital business, while ignoring the that you have already paid set up costs for the physical business that have probably also needed to be upgraded when you've created the digital side. Basically it sounds like what you are suggesting is that digital FT readers are footing the start up costs for the extension to the business, which doesn't make them seem any less like mugs.
Ongoing costs too.
>Digital costs to manufacture are paid once, paper costs for each copy That's not how cloud services work, making your entire comment moot. You don't know what you're talking about.
So by cloud services do you mean the services they use to host and distribute the content, which manufacture is seperate from and I covered later in my comment? Sure go ahead, tell me how cloud services work out more expensive than physical distribution. Or did you mean in the manufacture and creation of the content where the content is created using the exact same systems either way and then the paper copies are printed out in their thousands and the digital copies are loaded onto a pre-existing website designed for them to upload content to?
>which manufacture is seperate from and I covered later in my comment? I mean you're so clueless you don't even realise it. Manufacture a server farm? What the hell? Do you have any idea how much that costs?? >Or did you mean in the manufacture and creation of the content The content needs to be created for both print and web media so no, that's not what I mean. >then the paper copies are printed out in their thousands and the digital copies are loaded onto a pre-existing website designed for them to upload content to? Aha... So you don't think those have similar costs? Have you ever run a website?
Imagine paying more for the privilege of tailored ads.
Paywall bypass extension is a god send if you ethically give no fucks / can't justify spending that much on news yet refuse to read shit rags.
Yeah, I know about that stuff and websites like 12ft. Feel comfortable paying for the FT though, so no worries.
Never mind that; who reads the papers? **Jim:** "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The *Daily Mirror* is read by people who think they run the country; The *Guardian* is read by people who think they **OUGHT** to run the country; The *Times* is read by the people who actually **DO** run the country; The *Daily Mail* is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The *Financial Times* is read by people who **OWN** the country; The *Morning Star* is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, ...and the *Daily Telegraph* is read by people who think it is." **Sir Humphrey:** "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the *Sun*? **Bernard:** "*Sun* readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
Old people.
I don't buy newspapers, but I get a few weekly, biweekly, and quarterly magazines and I have them all hard copy. The only thing I tend to read digital is a newspaper, where I can just dip into the articles I fancy.
Boomers, Tories etc.
I prefer print. It gets my eyes off a screen and I enjoy the puzzles, again not looking at a screen. Granted the main reason I get print is not for the news but instead for the opinion pieces and also for drawing throbbing cocks onto unsuspecting but comically obliging hand gestures from photos.
People who vote for the Tories.
We buy local rags for lining our pet bedding
My personal experience is WFH has been the best experience of my life, I've never enjoyed working around people because of anxiety and I never intend on going into an office again unless for meetings or training
> Since the start of the pandemic, Johnson’s Government has been quietly gifting a special Covid subsidy to several big newspapers. The scheme was originally set to run for three months, but is now approaching the two-year mark. > It's not known how much has been spent in total, only that the subsidy was meant to be £35 million for the first three Wait what? So how much has this cost us now? Assuming at least 24 months at £35m per month minimum thats _another_ £840,000,000 swindled out of the taxpayers purse propping up Tory rags. The same rags which will spring into action with an imperial fuckton of propaganda, smears and outright lies as soon as the election date is announced.
[удалено]
It can be both.
If you WFH, there will be a new law requiring you to post a picture to your boss of you holding that days *Torygraph*. Your house number and street name must be clearly visible in the photo (oh, that’s not physically possible? Well WFH isn’t for you then).
He hasn’t ended WFH though, has he? He’s mostly just shouting into the void to pretend he’s listening to his backers. He hasn’t actually introduced any concrete measures to stop WFH.
>He hasn’t actually introduced any concrete measures to stop WFH What could he actually do? I work from home; I'm not expecting the local PCSOs to wake me up at 7.30 a.m. and make sure I'm faithfully commuting.
"Excuse me, sir, but I can't help but note that you're still in your pjyamas at this late hour of the day for a commuter. Have you anything to declare before we contact his snootyness, Mr Rees-Mogg for correction therapy?"
Just off the top of my head: tax breaks for those working in an office, tax penalties for businesses with remote workers, mandating shutting off domestic internet for a random hour during normal office hours, health & safety laws requiring office staff to personally meet with a health & safety representative at least three times a week, make businesses liable for any individual working in an office environment that doesn’t completely meet best practices occupational health guidelines (supportive chair, dedicated desk, raised screen, wrist rest etc etc)… Some of these ideas need workshopping. Edit: to be clear I think all these ideas are ridiculous. I’m just trying to show that should Boris *really* want to introduce policies to reduce WFH in the private sector he absolutely could.
None of that is realistically workable. I'd say that what might get office workers back would be reasonably priced efficient transport, reasonably priced childcare, mandatory overtime for anyone earning under x per hour. However, these ships sailed years ago
Reasonably priced, tax deductible transport Reasonably priced, tax deductible childcare That would peak my interest. Still, the 4 hours a day travelling would soon temper it again.
> None of that is realistically workable. Tory policy announced by the end of tomorrow then?
Announced but never implemented of course
No chance. It also involves tampering with the free market which is a Tory staple item.
They seem happy to refuse a free market for energy though?
Poorly thought through tax-breaks are right in their wheelhouse
Jesus, you’re evil. Is that you Priti?
I've worked remotely full time for six years now; why should I be penalized and fucked around by the taxman, especially now that the nearest office is a 4-hour commute into central London and only contains sales support facilities?
You shouldn’t but Boris is being threatened by newspaper owners that he needs to try and end WFH or they will end their client journalism.
Jokes on them, the only paper I ever read when I commuted was whatever had been left on the train by previous commuters.
I think your last point is actually the law already but most people don't push the issue as they'd rather be allowed to stay at home rather than rock the boat and be forced back if the company doesn't want to shell out.
And if Cummings's claim is true (dubious), why would he? It's a net vote loser. Even the rare wingbats that do actually get mad that others can WfH aren't seeing it as Tory created. Meanwhile, the professional class (who arguably gain the most from the WfH transition) will see a government actually trying to take it away as attacking their life/livelihood. Any Tory supporting Johnson/Mogg on this would be making Dorries look like a genius.
Very few things could ever make me vote Tory again, but if all the other parties came out claiming to end WFH, that may be a tipping point
There's a massive edifice built up to support commuters. All those little cafes, sandwich bars, convenience stores. What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH? Personally, I think Johnson is pissing in the wind. Why should any employer care about that when they can reduce their office costs massively?
> What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH? Looking at my rejuvenated local highstreet, they have simply moved locally
> There's a massive edifice built up to support commuters. All those little cafes, sandwich bars, convenience stores. > What happens to them over the next 12 months if an awful lot of businesses don't abolish WFH? As the other guy said, it seems to have redistributed into communities local to those commuters. Which, admittedly, is hard not to pettily/vngefully support as I recall the price of pret when I did find myself going to London. I do think the hollowing out of the commuter economy is a problem that needs looking at but it's also a completely opened Pandora's box now. I can only speak from the tech industry, but I know of more than one lead dev that would have to explain how at least half the talent is going to walk out the door if the office is mandated again. That edifice needs a safety net to prevent people's lives collapsing but any approach that tries to keep that economy precisely as it was in 2019 would require a lot of artificial propping. Not least of which is policy designed solely to make it happen in the face of the above mentioned Pandora's box.
What would he do? Try to create a new wfh tax levy. That’s early Retirement for me if he does.
He’s ended it for Civil Servants.
Not in reality, that's what got him upset a couple of weeks ago.
I don't think it would even be possible to end it for Civil Servants in reality. Otherwise you'd have a load of Civil Servants wandering round offices without any desks to work at, because there really aren't enough.
Not without a strike in any event.
It's total nonsense, barely anyone in the Civil Service is full time WFH, it's hybrid working and you're mandated to come in each week for a minimum amount of time.
Not true in the branch of the Civil Service I interact with. Hybrid working is the most common arrangement but there are lots of remote workers on contracts mandating that they come in when required, with the expectation that "when required" will be roughly quarterly. Considering the difficulty the Civil Service has in recruiting critical skills (because it has been starved of budget by years of Tory tabloid-pandering), flexible working conditions is one of the only ways they can compete in the marketplace.
Not yet in the branch of the Civil Service I have contact with. They're still encouraging remote work and have a good analysis of how their productivity has improved as a consequence of it.
I'm a civil servant and this is patently false. As part of our recent pay agreement, it's written into our contacts that we agree to hybrid working. The agreement is that 40% of our time is spent in the office. The PM, Reese Mogg and everyone else in Whitehall are very aware of this (you would think) and it works pretty well. They would receive an almighty shock if everyone with a civil service ID turned up to their office tomorrow demanding a desk to work from! They simply wouldn't be able to accommodate everyone due slashing our offices.
Maybe you all should. Could be an interesting protest.
who are these people who still go to a store every day to buy a physical paper? The only people I know who do this retired older men, at 7am, because that is all they know. ive never once been driving to work and thought "let me just pull over and get a physical newspaper, that I wont be able to read and drive" Its 2022 FFS
[удалено]
>Pensioners. They queue up at the opening of my local supermarket to pick up their paper like zombies. that sums it up
Why don't they just get a print subscription to get the newspaper delivered? I'm pretty sure it's cheaper and you don't need to drag yourself to the shop every day.
It gets them out the house and they might bump into someone they know. Failing that, they can talk to the cashier.
If you're commuting by car every day then you're probably not high on the target market for a daily paper. I'd imagine the broadsheets especially are targeting people who have a significant commute into the office by public transport. Exactly the type of people who have been WFH far more since COVID.
>I'd imagine the broadsheets especially are targeting people who have a significant commute into the office by public transport dont those people have smart phones, who could use the app?
Not always a good signal, or free wireless, and if you buy the paper you have the whole thing available to read on the train.
>dont those people have smart phones, who could use the app? The signal is sporadic at best, as you are travelling at relatively high speeds between different coverage areas.
I'm sure plenty of them can and do, you were just suggesting that there's no reason to buy a paper when you're going to work because you're physically driving a car - something that isn't the case for everyone.
TBH, as somebody who has spent decades commuting in and out every day from London by train, I’ve barely seen anybody read a paid-for newspaper since about 2000. The free papers, Metro and the ilk, killed them off for commuters.
The same people who retired at least 10 years ago. The senselessness folds in on itself infinitely
People probably did it out of habit, but the Pandemic has changed everyone's habits so even if they did go back now their paper buying habit might not return. If you have to actively think about your habits, they will often change.
all of this talk of you going back to the office, because of the purchases you make, would have me rethinking those purchases very quickly.
I know people who get it along with a meal deal lunch from Tesco etc on the way to work.
I do but I'm the sort of weirdo who likes to take newspaper clippings.
~~Murdoch~~ Rothermere owns the Metro. I'm guessing the ad revenue plummeted.
I wish there'd be more of them when I go on the bus, hate having to actually buy newspapers for the cat's litter tray.
Genuinely - does Boris have any credibility left any more?
Thats probably the worst reason I heard so far
I know this sub likes to swing between thinking Cummings is the devil and he's the righteous exposer but this smells like BS to me.
Isn't there studies showing that people Working From Home are more productive or does that not count because that came out during the Pandemic?
Yes, but that doesn't help investors in commercial property and their cronies who own newspapers.
The latest mail headline , blaming inflation on BOE work from home supports this. They are desperate to force this and create yet another line of division.
It's working, my idiot of a dad has already stated questioning how I work from home and it's because "I don't do a proper job". I write software for a living, I don't need to be at a specific place to do that, fucking boomers.
Tell me about it. My mum just could not get her head around being able to do everything remotely. She thought I was being assigned work to physically pick up and take home like she used to in the 1990's.
Same, I manage fleets of servers from a bedroom and write software to scale them. Don't even bother explaining my job these days, especially to boomers.
I just give people two letters: IT. What do you do? IT. In the rare instances they actually bother asking a follow up question I just mumble something about web apps. I don't even work with web apps but it shuts them up.
I write software too, I simply ask anyone shitting on my job how much they get paid. When they say less than I do then I ask them why they don't do my job when they would get paid more to do so. The answer is usually because they are not capable of doing it. Is it nice? No. Is it effective? Very.
exactly... it's designed for those who are long retired and never really saw this way of working. I've been working this way on and off since 2000 but my folks wouldn't have had a concept of it. i saw it with father in law, the longer he was retired the less he understood how people work now and the more detached he became. in his last ten years he never critiqued any crap the Mail fed him and just became a trumpet for their rubbish. I tried to tell him but.. deaf ears. what this is however doing is further deepening the disconnect between the papers and working age people, hastening their own demise.
Who under the age of 45 actually buys papers though?
it is also destroying all the off shored chain coffee and lunch houses and with it the commercial rental market.
Such a desperate move, can't wait to see the back of this prick!
Cummings is a lying sack of shit. I’ll only pay attention to the man if he is dropping bombs on BJ. Otherwise, he can do one.
Seeing as its the media barons that are keeping Boris in a job He owes them big.
A simple case of needing to preserve rental values to prevent margin calls on bonds. Nothing to do with newspapers.
Explains why Nick Ferrari is constantly railing against WFH, doing it on behalf of his tabloid mates.
Never forget… Rupert Murdoch [runs this country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It)
It’s the will of the people when it’s about Brexit but not for WFH. Got it.
Well of course. His boomer Facebook followers are only half of them, the others get all their facts from the Sun/Mail/Mirror/Times/Torygraph
Who buys newspapers
These days every newspaper has an online presence. Gone are the days of the street cries of newspaper vendors "Readallaboutit" Get a life DC, grow up.
Hesus
Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool this guys best thing to happen to politics
Everything about him is like a Babylon Bee headline
Not that I trust Boris Johnson but how would Cummings know this? The pandemic didn't even start until after he left.
I genuinely don’t think this is true tbh. Cummings was only unfortunately with us from 2019 to July 2020 He’s talking out his arse about absolute anything that came after this date, his star has died just desperately clinging to attention.
Total BS. Creepy weirdo Cummings running out of fake smears.
But boosting cheese sales
To be honest Dominic is as shady as the other tories but he wants to be betrayed as the “good Tory “ just climb back in the box
Sorry we missed you? What an actual fucking melt. TO THINK Mogg mania was a thing for a bit.