2/
Your regular reminder that Brexit is going badly because the UK has still to decide what the purpose of leaving the EU is
1/
2/
A touchstone of dissent, if you will (h/t @PaulAdamTaggart)
3/
"Vote for us and everything will be dandy" is not a plan
4/
All very majoritarian, as per
5/
Cue fudging and obfuscation. And battles over dominance that were (again) more about being top dog than any sense of where the UK might be going
6/
However, that someone was Johnson, someone not given to strategic vision, but instead to rolling with the good times
7/
And maybe not even from the subjective tropes of 'taking back control'
It's a choice from various problematic options
8/
Crisis management isn't it
10/
11/
But also for a less obvious reason
12/
So it's still there for the picking
And you might not like who is doing that picking
13/
14/
More from Brexit
So. The hunt is on in Whitehall for #brexit dividends...to show some clear value in the freedoms given by Brexit.
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x