They understandably don't want to take the risk, given the second waves we are seeing in other countries.
It also benefits most employees who get a better work/life balance, works better with childcare, avoids long commute etc etc It's therefore a highly rational decision.. 2/9
for many firms to continue WFH. Government and media exhortations won't change that.
Furthermore, I've argued that it's likely that Brits propensity to WFH has contributed to our relatively low case numbers vs other countries (tho 1,500 cases yesterday)
However the people on here deriding the concerns of "Big Sandwich" are ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of jobs depend on the presence of office workers in town centres.
These are ordinary people, facing losing their jobs within the next few months.
4/9
WFH *does* have an economic cost.
But mitigating these costs is exactly what government is there to do. Many office workers *will* return once the threat from Covid has diminished, so it would be sensible to extend the furlough scheme for hospitality workers. 5/9
But it's likely that we'll still see increased WFH post-Covid; some city-centre jobs are probably gone for gone.
Which means the government needs to be acting *now* to re-train and redeploy the workers who lose out. But instead, they are going round blaming other people... 6/9
... so they don't have to take the fall for the looming economic downturn.
@YouGov polling shows that whilst people of working age are fine with WFH, over 65s disapprove. Probably no coincidence that over 65s disproportionately vote Conservative. 🤔7/9
WFH is helping to keep Covid numbers down. If everyone went back to the office causing a big rise in cases, the government will have to reimpose restrictions which will have a severe economic impact anyway. As well as putting lives (predominantly of over 65s) at risk. 8/9
All in all, the government needs to act to save jobs and businesses, rather than simply trying to evade responsibility as it has done so frequently in this crisis. ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s a year since I took up the fantastic role of Director of Research at @labourtogether. Until then, I’d not had a formal job in politics – I’ve spent most of my career doing “normal” jobs in “normal” workplaces. Some reflections on the disconnect between those two worlds. 1/
Political actors will acknowledge that most people don’t pay much attention to politics, but I think it’s hard for them to understand the true extent of this. I've worked mostly in offices, mainly with graduates. You still only get 1 or 2 people who regularly discuss politics. 2/
People are much more interested in talking to their colleagues about friends, family, their co-workers, Chelsea’s new left back, handbags, holidays, the menu change at the local Indian… *anything* other than politics. This was true even at the height of the Brexit Wars. 3/
Appeared on the @politicshome podcast yesterday alongside Reform Deputy Leader Ben Habib. Which was both a lot more fun than I had assumed, and also very insightful about Reform...
First, they really are out to get the Tories. An electoral pact was *firmly* ruled out. 1/
Second, Ben Habib claimed Reform weren't "right wing". But that's not true. And not just on culture and immigration, but on economics. They want to slash tax and cut welfare to force people back to work. No need to put more £ into the NHS. 2/
And this is why Reform is taking so few voters from Labour. 1% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to Reform, compared to 18% of 2019 Con voters in the latest @yougov poll. Even only around 2% of 2017 Labour voters would now vote for Reform. 3/
Our new polling at @labourtogether shows that including the Rwanda scheme in the government's asylum policies makes the overall package *less* popular, which is... interesting... given how hard the Tories are continuing to push this policy (or at least be seen to push it). 1/
We showed one group of respondents a set of Tory policies on asylum (taken from the Conservative website) which included Rwanda. Net approval was +6 points.
Another group saw the policies without Rwanda. Net approval was +18 points. 2/
We also showed respondents Labour's five point plan on asylum. Net approval was a huge +40 points. And head to head with the Tory plan, voters preferred Labour's plan by 15 points.
Our polling busts several persistent myths on public attitudes to migration. 3/
Possibly unpopular opinion, but Brexit did not cause Truss. She's actually the first *post* Brexit PM and that's what undid her. Her ideology was a shift away from the values/Brexit divide and back to a political debate around tax, spending and the size and role of the state. 1/
Hence her big attempt to create an electorally advantageous "us and them" dividing line was based on the supposed existence of an "anti-growth coalition" which opposed her economic plans, rather than focusing on Brexit divisions, "woke" or other cultural issues. 2/
The problem for the Tories is that a politics that focuses on economics, means that they find themselves on the wrong side of majority opinion. This excellent chart from @UKandEU shows how much more right-wing Tory MPs and members are, than even the average *Tory* voter. 3/
A rare disagreement with @johnmcternan. He's right that to push back against Truss, Labour needs to talk about growth more than tax and redistribution. But where I disagree is that I don’t see Trussonomics as a big threat to Labour. There are 3 reasons.🧵 unherd.com/2022/09/has-li…
(1) It’s poor politics. It’s difficult to see how uncapping banker’s bonuses when nurses are considering striking over low pay, plus the refusal to back a windfall tax when 4 out of 5 voters (including Tory voters) support it, is a popular approach. yougov.co.uk/topics/utiliti…
I’m not sure the public link either of those things to economic growth - if they do then it will be seen as the wrong kind of growth. Policies which help businesses (assuming this will drive growth) rather than helping people, run up against some stark public attitudes.
This piece from @jdportes is quietly devastating.
The government could have borrowed much more 2010-2015, with near zero interest rates. They could have alleviated poverty and shored up public services. Instead, Truss is saying she will borrow now as interest rates are rising. 1/
Which is going to be much more problematic and basically means that she probably can't afford all of (a) tax cuts (b) the inevitable package of support for households and businesses in the energy crisis and (c) to support public services, particularly the NHS and social care. 2/
The NHS faces a potentially catastrophic winter, a combination of a cold winter, flu and another Covid wave could overwhelm it.
Cameron could have created more resilience for health and particularly for social care, at a time when government had much more leeway to borrow. 3/