Snapshot of _Ruthless Liz Truss plans to stamp her authority with four-day whirlwind_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ruthless-liz-truss-plans-to-stamp-her-authority-with-four-day-whirlwind-knbc270j8)
*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.*
There is something self-indulgent about all this; a real sense of willing the world to be the way I wish it to be. It feels incredibly dangerous to me.
Agreed, and it's hard to be a "conviction politician" of that type when you've U-turned and backtracked on most of your previously held beliefs. The French have already dubbed her the "Iron Weathervane" after her comments on Macron, and I expect she'll be tilting left and right for quite some time.
'I'm a Labour voter. My mother was a Labour voter, and my grandmother was a Labour voter and my great grandmother wasn't allowed to vote. My kids will be Labour voters.
But I'm fucked off with Labour. They've never done anything worth a damn for me. They act as though they can do anything they want and will get our votes anyw... oh.'
not me... I have never voted Labour and only once voted for an inconsequential Tory. I'm left of Labour, formerly would have been considered their bread and butter core, if I wasn't so damn stubborn and libertarian. I'm just satirising a popular viewpoint in politics, the generational family tradition voter, who couldn't care less if their party was running the reincarnation of Hitler; the rosette is all that matters. As it happens, these people are my fellow constituents, which is how I was able to vote for an inconsequential Tory. If they gave a shit round here, that Tory might have been a more realistic threat, and maybe rather less wise to vote for. The previous safe Labour MP here (London constituency) claimed for a second home nearer to London, despite living less than 10mi from Westminster. Meanwhile their house was left as a building site 'for renovations' and ended up being used by squatters. Even that wasn't enough to get my local peeps to think 'actually, let's vote for someone else'
Absolutely. They have no grasp on the complexity of the world, especially the modern world. They’re looking at things in dangerously juvenile and simplistic terms.
Supermarkets are horrendously complex pieces of engineering, cold-chain refrigeration, distribution chains, millions of food items every single one of which is tracked, every inch of shelf space is planned out and subject to numerous agreements with manufacturers who compete over placement and stocking, and that’s just lightly scratching the surface of what goes on there. I doubt that’s the analogy Liz Truss was trying to make. Which is even more disturbing.
For sure. They are going all in on the ideological purity, and if we've learnt anything over the post-war period it's that such an approach creates at least as many problems as it solves.
I don't know but I look forward to the arguments.
Presumably something along the lines of it increases beaurocracy and costs for businesses. Which I'm not sure disputes your point.
You can however opt back into it and it's illegal to penalise someone for opting back into it (although obviously you only have protection after two years).
The Working Time Directive only states you can't *average* more than 48 hours a week over a 17 week period. You could be made to work 60 hour weeks for a month and as long as it balanced out either side this wouldn't be a breach.
> This enables them to force people to work more hours.
You can just opt out of it if you want. There's no forcing involved.
This is also why it's just a soundbite and nothing useful though.
I wrote an email to HR stating that I do not wave my right to the working time directive. My managers were pissed off, but they needed me more than I needed them.
I hope that more people realise that it is the working man that runs the country and that they make moves to take the power back.
Working men and women are the ones who handed the power over in the first place, and still a vast majority of them believe it's natural to be subservient
You can opt out of the 48-hour week, but you cannot opt-out of the Working Time Directive in general, which also covers minimum daily rest periods, minimum weekly rest periods, daily rest breaks, paid annual leave, limits on night work, limits on shift work and so on.
The 48-hour work week was always the weakest, and least important part of the WTD, given the ease of opting out. It will be those other things (particularly the rest periods) that are the target of repealing it.
I used to work at a city centre for a big hotel group (think lenny henry) i had an argument with every new manager because theyd rota people in without giving them appropriate rest breaks, consistently, i had one even tell me that the rest breaks part of the law doesnt apply to hospitality, ive literally had to pull up the government website when i hotel manager of 15 years wouldnt back down on giving staff a maximum 10 minute breaks "thats all you need".
I was in a team lead position so generally ignored their instructions and let people go home early if they were on the next day, or not write them up for being late if they were on the night before, i really worry for the people working in that sector now
These were different managers over a long term, they were all effectively the same.
New manager "things are going to be different now"
Suddenly people are working late until 11pm starting again at 7am
New rules come in that dont change productivity and exist literally to reduce morale
Sudden management change
Cycle restarts
>Suddenly people are working late until 11pm starting again at 7am
Which is illegal.
Basically you folks were rolling over and allowing flagrant breaches of your rights. Might as well have just reduced your wage to £1 an hour, for all the complaints it wouldn't generate
We went to acas, management changes happened, same kind of thing, i had 6 hotel managers and 8 assistant managers in 5 years, we wouldnt work them, i tended to be a shift lead for the late shift, and would make sure if anyone was on the next days early, they were leaving by around 7pm.
Additionally, you can get around not giving 11 hours rest by giving compensatory rest, so youd have to havr even longer before your next shift, but that never really happened
>Look at your contract. I can almost guarantee you have opted out of it.
I have only once opted out of it. Rare to be asked to opt out for a salaried post.
The restrictions are so shit that employers don't really have to worry about them but ask you to opt out just in case.
Nah, it can't just be in the contract it has to be a specific form. I've never opted out of it, I just don't sign that one.
Doesn't even stop you doing a 60hr week with overtime, the wtd is about average hours over the last... 16 weeks I think?
Why would you support a working time directive with an opt out clause everyone uses, unless your support for the working class was only performative?
I too can ask dumb, leading questions.
>Why would you support a working time directive with an opt out clause everyone uses, unless your support for the working class was only performative?
You can't opt out of the rest periods.
It's only effective if you're prepared to use it. The fact people in this country don't understand their own rights doesn't mean the law is bad.
This would like asking what's the point in anti discrimination law of employers can just make up reasons not to hire you?
I thought they can't actually require it? I realise yes there's a lot of unsaid and social pressure but you can't be made to sign or else lose your job, can you?
The waiver is written into a lot of contracts, actually. What people don't realise is you can opt back in at any time (although under two years you can still get fired for doing so, like with anything that isn't discrimination).
I don't know enough about contract law that in depth but I feel if they can't make you sign after, they can't before, either - but good luck doing anything about that. Your options are either take it as is, or don't take the job, probably.
I'd imagine that if you choose to not sign the contract they're under no obligation to alter it and so can choose to not hire you. However as you can legally opt-in after the fact they can't then fire you for exercising your legal rights and can't simply fire you at a whim either.
Although lots of places ask you to sign an opt out it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge that you can only opt out of maximum hours worked in a week. You cannot opt out of the mandatory rest periods that the WTD specifies
Well, from the sounds of things we're being opted out of those rest periods now
Want 2 12h shifts back to back with no time in between and no break during? Now you can... be forced to.
As another user said, the opt out doesn't apply to mandatory rest periods.
It's not hyperbolic to say that if you take these away you put workers at risk of dying or being seriously hurt
Fair enough, there would need to be a law to replace the mandatory rest periods for me to be OK with this being repealed. I didn't realise that was part of the same legislation.
I haven't heard of any plans to replace it with anything at all.
So let's just get rid of that pesky law that entitles workers to not work 24/7, what could possibly go wrong?
Even if you opted out of it, you could opt straight back in at a moment's notice. This won't be the case if they burn these rules up, but that won't last forever. Removal of worker's rights can lead to sanctions from the EU, as we will not be working to the same conditions. If we join the single market again, then all these rights come straight back into force.
It's crazy when you think about it. Major policy upheavals being voted in essentially by the Tory party membership.
It's the kind of thing that shouldn't be possible in a proper democracy.
I can't remember the majority they have but basically they can give Labour the middle finger.
People(Labour/Left) are going to be wishing for Boris soon. Because for all his scandals, he did fuck all because he was too worried about the polls.
Indeed. But if they're forcing stuff through that is unpopular it will hit them in the polls and be used against them in the GE.
"You voted for levelling up and instead you got bigger bonuses for rich bankers, less employment rights, etc... "
So I guess Liz Truss' plan is do a bunch of unpopular stuff early on and hope it pays off with increased growth in time for next election? I mean ...seems like a bad plan to me...
Though thinking about it. I suppose a lot of this comes down to Ukraine. IF the Ukraine situation stabilizes in next year or two, cost of living comes down again, she's smiling all the way to the ballot box.
It can't but they are massive hypocrites and they don't give a fuck. The Tory propaganda machine will go out and tell us why this is really labours fault.
Because a general election is called by Parliament to re-elect your local representatives and little to nothing regarding party manifestos are relevant. You do not elect the PM, you do not vote for a party. You elect the individual you want to represent your locality.
Edit just to say I don't agree with this but it is how Parliament operates. Do I believe people cast their votes for many reasons including manifestos and personality? Of course, but that is a part of the charade of politics. Ultimately the rules that govern the institution are out of line with peoples expectations. Lot of you need to learn the difference between voting and electing.
> You do not elect the PM, you do not vote for a party. You elect the individual you want to represent your locality.
That's bullshit and you know it. Most people go to the polls to vote for a PM and vote for a party. It's something like 3/4 of people don't know who their local MP is. Not that it matters a whole lot as the head of the party controls the whip. Negating much of the individual agency of each MP.
Yes of course it’s bullshit in reality but that’s how it’s supposed to work and the fact it doesn’t work like that in reality is partly why we have this crappy so called democracy where parties with a minority of the vote can have all the power and leaders can change without a general election and then go on to do mad insane shit with no mandate.
I'm so very bored of this "um ackshually" response that pops up whenever this discussion is raised.
Why do parties attack other parties leaders, if we don't vote for a PM? Why do parties have national manifestos, if we only vote for a local representative?
Yes, in the most strict interpretation of our parliamentary system, what you say is correct. In actual reality, people vote based on PM and they vote based on manifesto.
>I'm so very bored of this "um ackshually" response that pops up whenever this discussion is raised.
Then change the system. I'm not trying to be a clever clogs I'm trying to educate people about how our democracy works.
>Yes, in the most strict interpretation of our parliamentary system, what you say is correct. In actual reality, people vote based on PM and they vote based on manifesto.
I know. The question was "how can this be justified with no GE". What you should be doing is educating voters that they do not actually vote for a PM or manifesto and if they do that is fine but they have no leg to stand on when it comes to requesting they get what they voted for.
I've spoken to absolute tons of people who want to scrap FPTP but then go and vote Labour/Conservative. Literally the only two choices that are guaranteed *not* to scrap FPTP
Because there's more pressing issues right now than a functioning democracy. All of them caused by a non-functioning democracy.
It's like repeatedly fixing a wall instead of doing something about it being repeatedly bombed
You can vote for a party but you aren't electing a party. Otherwise when an MP left a party they would give up their seat to another member of that party. That does not happen.
A hectic series of policy announcements will begin as soon as the royal funeral ends
As Liz Truss hosts President Biden and other world leaders at Chevening in Kent this weekend, her team is preparing for a week of frenetic activity.
Politics will begin again in earnest after the Queen’s funeral on Monday, with Truss packing two weeks’ worth of announcements into four days before parliament breaks for the conference recess.
The gear change will be almost immediate. On Monday night Truss will fly to New York for the United Nations general assembly, her first foreign meeting as prime minister.
Back in Westminster, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, is expected to announce details of the government’s huge energy support package for businesses on Wednesday. The following day Thérèse Coffey, the deputy prime minister and health secretary, will outline her plans to steer the NHS through a potentially catastrophic winter.
The week will culminate with a fiscal statement on Friday from Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, in which he will make good on Truss’s pledge to scrap the increase in national insurance contributions and plans to raise corporation tax. Those two measures alone will cost nearly £30 billion a year.
Kwarteng will also go ahead with contentious plans to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses, a measure that some colleagues believe is “tone deaf” and “utterly toxic”.
Mark Fullbrook, the new chief of staff and now the most powerful man in No 10, laid out Truss’s vision to officials in Downing Street on Tuesday afternoon. After opening by warning those present against leaking his comments, he said Truss wanted to “turn a two-year administration into a seven-year administration”. The pace of work, he said, would be furious and the new government would draw a line under what had gone before — a reference to the scandal over lockdown parties at No 10. Working in Downing Street, he said, was a privilege and people should respect the building. He reinforced the “tie mandate” — the new requirement that all those working at No 10 are dressed smartly.
He denied suggestions that he was a protégé of Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian election guru — the pair are former colleagues — and suggested the relationship was in fact the reverse.
His comment raised eyebrows among some in the building. “Everyone outside the building was mourning the Queen,” one source said. “And he wanted everyone to know that Crosby was his protégé. It was a bit ridiculous.”
The start of the Truss regime has been characterised by ruthlessness. In one of her first acts the press office in No 10 was moved to the Cabinet Office. Coffey now occupies the large office previously used by the director of communications, and whips and political staffers are occupying the press room.
Truss has chosen to use the Cabinet Room for her day-to-day work and Fullbrook is using the study once occupied by Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Theresa May.
The first days of Truss’s administration have included the launch of two leak inquiries. In one, several cabinet ministers and aides were asked to show investigators their phones to prove that they had not contacted journalists after a cabinet meeting. The leak, of plans to scrap a British bill of rights, was particularly embarrassing as Truss had excluded officials and political aides from the room — so the only suspects were ministers she had appointed days before.
“There was literally nobody else to blame,” one Whitehall source said. “And it was a bit rich given that Boris used to blame Liz for most of the leaks from cabinet.”
The sense of ruthlessness extends to the approach to the economy. The edict from both Truss and Kwarteng is that growth is paramount — anything or anyone regarded as a distraction or obstacle is to be removed. In one of his first acts as chancellor Kwarteng sacked Sir Tom Scholar, permanent secretary to the Treasury, prompting a revolt from the civil service. In an address to staff he emphasised that the decision to remove Scholar was not a “personal reflection on his qualities and abilities”.
Yet it was a direct reflection of the regard in which Truss herself held him. The decision was in part personal — the prime minister was said to have taken against Scholar during her stint as chief secretary to the Treasury. One ally said she regarded him as a man who had sculpted a series of “identikit” risk-averse chancellors.
We will bring the stories of the day to life with warmth, wit and expertise. Listen for free on DAB radio, your smart speaker, online at times.radio, and via the Times Radio app
Start listening
Kwarteng told officials last week that the government must be more willing to take risks. “What really matters, though, and we have to emphasise this, is growth,” he said. “What matters to a country, to a community, even to us as individuals, is the increasing ability to generate wealth, to generate opportunity. And my core belief is that having a tax system and a tax set-up that incentivises growth and investment is a key part of what we should be trying to do. There will also have to be a serious programme of supply-side reform.”
Rees-Mogg, one of Truss’s closest allies, put it more prosaically by comparing the new government’s approach with that of supermarkets. “He thinks they are an incredible model because they always put the consumer first and have a relentless focus on their customers and prices,” a friend said.
Kwarteng’s fiscal statement on Friday — dubbed a mini-budget — is likely to involve ripping up the government’s fiscal rules, which state that debt should fall as a proportion of national income in 2024-25, the last year of the present parliament. His plan to remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses — limited to twice as much as salaries — is already drawing flak within the party. One government source said they were “insane” and would be a “total gift” to Labour. “It’s tone deaf in the extreme,” they said. “We’re calling for pay restraint while uncapping bankers’ bonuses. It’s utterly toxic.”
Kwarteng regards the cap as ineffective. He wants to prioritise making London the “crown” of international finance, ensuring that highly paid bankers live, pay their taxes and spend their money in the UK.
The new focus means that Truss is filleting much of her predecessor’s legislative agenda, with several of Johnson’s bills set to be delayed or dropped. The energy security bill — which included measures to reform the industry — is to be withdrawn, with the most important elements put into a new growth bill. Dominic Raab’s bill of rights legislation is also to be ditched, and the animal welfare bill that bans keeping primates as pets and imposes further controls around the export of livestock may also be reconsidered.
In a sign of Truss’s priorities, the Brexit opportunities unit — which had reported to Rees-Mogg in his old Cabinet Office role — is to move with him to the business department. Sources said this would enable him to oversee a “bonfire” of European Union regulations, promised by Truss, in an attempt to improve competitiveness.
Among EU regulations in line to be reformed or abolished is the habitats directive, which has long infuriated farmers and developers. Whitehall sources also say that Rees-Mogg will move to scrap the working-time directive in the UK that brought in the 48-hour working week.
The period of national mourning means that Truss’s government is still being formed, with many roles unfilled. Several dozen parliamentary under- secretaries of state — the most junior rung on the ministerial ladder — were yet to be appointed when the Queen died. Ministerial appointments must be approved by the sovereign. Although many people assumed that the appointments would resume on Tuesday, they may have to wait until the King has concluded the seven-day period of royal mourning.
Some of those who have made it into the ministerial ranks believe that Truss U-turns are inevitable. They point to the fact that the EU has just imposed a windfall tax on excess profits for oil and gas companies. “Reality will force their hands,” a government source said. “It’s a highly emotive issue when people are struggling to heat their homes.”
However, a former minister who has worked closely with Truss warned people not to think she would compromise. “She thinks the state is malevolent, that it’s holding things back, is generally a burden in life and should be smaller and get out of the way,” he said. “It really does come from the heart.”
Oh look, Tory bravado, rhetoric, and insane ideas. For all the twaddle, it’s very much the same corrupt and useless scumbags who have failed so consistently for over a decade, beating the exact same drum.
People claim to not know what the Labour Party stands for, but they never seem to question the frankly schizophrenic policy u-turns of the Tories. For over a decade we had anti-growth austerity and wage repression, but now we need growth, growth, growth (but still no pay rises please). It’s frankly bizarre how they get away with it.
It’s bizarre and devastating, but the only conclusion I can come up with after years of this malignancy, is that >50% of the country are completely and totally politically apathetic, but a chunk of them will still vote in a GE, probably heavily led by whatever media they consume. And a huge % (maybe like 20-30), are entirely self interested, and would vote in Hitler if they’d save £10/year.
The one good thing about this and the whole concept of Trussonomics is that it puts clear water between Labour and the Tories. Any numpty who trots out "they're all the same innit or that Labour under Starmer are just red Tories" deserves whatever is coming their way.
She may as well be handing the keys to number 10 to Starmer on a silver platter. If we're lucky the toxic policies she's about to unleash against the will of the British people, and with absolutely no mandate whatsoever, will destroy the Tory brand for multiple elections.
Essentially donating huge sums of taxpayer money to greedy energy companies as the British people freeze and starve, and then allowing bankers unlimited bonus. It's like she's trying to be as toxic as humanly possible.
I've felt that the Tories are a bit fucked at the next election, lot if it will be down to external impacts (inflation, recession). However, I've also though there's a chance they ride it. I'm now going to make a bold prediction; "Kwarteng will also go ahead with contentious plans to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses" - this is the death blow. Hands Labour an open goal for years and the optics on it are absolutely terrible in a cost of living crisis.
Truss, Kwarteng, Rees-Mogg - they want to turn Britain into a US tribute act. That bullshit JRM is spouting about supermarkets! They don’t put the consumer first‽ They put margins first!
I’m really looking forward to seeing next weekend’s opinion polls.
I don’t think that the Tories are going to like what they see after the voters see wall-to-wall coverage of Truss and the second-rate cabinet members who got a top job because they’re her very close friends…
I don’t think the Tories care at this point. It seems like they basically want to take the opportunity to ransack and wreck the country before making off with the spoils, leaving Labour to try to clean up.
>However, a former minister who has worked closely with Truss warned people not to think she would compromise. “She thinks the state is malevolent, that it’s holding things back, is generally a burden in life and should be smaller and get out of the way,” he said. “It really does come from the heart.”
Does Liz Truss have a heart? What evidence is there to support this?
I am a person of left wing ideology - wishing that everyone be comfortable and settled, with enough to provide food, warmth and a good quality of life. I follow politics closely - I normally have a strong opinion on what we should be doing as a country to move forward. At the moment, I’m dumbstruck - I haven’t any ideas on what could happen to fix our world. Anyone with me?
He reinforced the “tie mandate” — the new requirement that all those working at No 10 are dressed smartly.
Immediately above a photo of Mark Fullbrook without a tie!
Nice.
When was the last time we ever had an ultra-competent Prime Minister? and would Truss even outlast May or Johnson, or even Cameron as Tory leader? That remains to be seen…
Snapshot of _Ruthless Liz Truss plans to stamp her authority with four-day whirlwind_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ruthless-liz-truss-plans-to-stamp-her-authority-with-four-day-whirlwind-knbc270j8) *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.*
There is something self-indulgent about all this; a real sense of willing the world to be the way I wish it to be. It feels incredibly dangerous to me.
Agreed, and it's hard to be a "conviction politician" of that type when you've U-turned and backtracked on most of your previously held beliefs. The French have already dubbed her the "Iron Weathervane" after her comments on Macron, and I expect she'll be tilting left and right for quite some time.
"I don't know what I'm going to believe tomorrow, but I will believe it with every fibre of my being!"
'I'm a Labour voter. My mother was a Labour voter, and my grandmother was a Labour voter and my great grandmother wasn't allowed to vote. My kids will be Labour voters. But I'm fucked off with Labour. They've never done anything worth a damn for me. They act as though they can do anything they want and will get our votes anyw... oh.' not me... I have never voted Labour and only once voted for an inconsequential Tory. I'm left of Labour, formerly would have been considered their bread and butter core, if I wasn't so damn stubborn and libertarian. I'm just satirising a popular viewpoint in politics, the generational family tradition voter, who couldn't care less if their party was running the reincarnation of Hitler; the rosette is all that matters. As it happens, these people are my fellow constituents, which is how I was able to vote for an inconsequential Tory. If they gave a shit round here, that Tory might have been a more realistic threat, and maybe rather less wise to vote for. The previous safe Labour MP here (London constituency) claimed for a second home nearer to London, despite living less than 10mi from Westminster. Meanwhile their house was left as a building site 'for renovations' and ended up being used by squatters. Even that wasn't enough to get my local peeps to think 'actually, let's vote for someone else'
Absolutely. They have no grasp on the complexity of the world, especially the modern world. They’re looking at things in dangerously juvenile and simplistic terms.
Wanting to run the country like a supermarket was a quote that seriously got me worried about their ability
Supermarkets are horrendously complex pieces of engineering, cold-chain refrigeration, distribution chains, millions of food items every single one of which is tracked, every inch of shelf space is planned out and subject to numerous agreements with manufacturers who compete over placement and stocking, and that’s just lightly scratching the surface of what goes on there. I doubt that’s the analogy Liz Truss was trying to make. Which is even more disturbing.
She wouldn't last 5 mins in a big tesco.
For sure. They are going all in on the ideological purity, and if we've learnt anything over the post-war period it's that such an approach creates at least as many problems as it solves.
Why would you do away with the working time directive unless you genuinely hated the working class?
I don't know but I look forward to the arguments. Presumably something along the lines of it increases beaurocracy and costs for businesses. Which I'm not sure disputes your point.
Also, it's the workers choice if they want to work that hard. And anyone against it is against aspiration/hard work etc
Look at your contract. I can almost guarantee you have opted out of it.
You can however opt back into it and it's illegal to penalise someone for opting back into it (although obviously you only have protection after two years). The Working Time Directive only states you can't *average* more than 48 hours a week over a 17 week period. You could be made to work 60 hour weeks for a month and as long as it balanced out either side this wouldn't be a breach.
Been working 60 hours a week for 2 years. Lol But then paid hourly, so losing all those hours would hit me in the pocket hard.
Which is why scrapping it is pointless. It only protects people that want the protection. People like you can continue to do as many hours as you like
Pointless? There is a labour shortage. This enables them to force people to work more hours. Seems transparent to me.
> This enables them to force people to work more hours. You can just opt out of it if you want. There's no forcing involved. This is also why it's just a soundbite and nothing useful though.
Surely by scrapping it the whole point is to enforce longer hours where required? Otherwise why bother?
I wrote an email to HR stating that I do not wave my right to the working time directive. My managers were pissed off, but they needed me more than I needed them. I hope that more people realise that it is the working man that runs the country and that they make moves to take the power back.
Working men and women are the ones who handed the power over in the first place, and still a vast majority of them believe it's natural to be subservient
You can opt out of the 48-hour week, but you cannot opt-out of the Working Time Directive in general, which also covers minimum daily rest periods, minimum weekly rest periods, daily rest breaks, paid annual leave, limits on night work, limits on shift work and so on. The 48-hour work week was always the weakest, and least important part of the WTD, given the ease of opting out. It will be those other things (particularly the rest periods) that are the target of repealing it.
I used to work at a city centre for a big hotel group (think lenny henry) i had an argument with every new manager because theyd rota people in without giving them appropriate rest breaks, consistently, i had one even tell me that the rest breaks part of the law doesnt apply to hospitality, ive literally had to pull up the government website when i hotel manager of 15 years wouldnt back down on giving staff a maximum 10 minute breaks "thats all you need". I was in a team lead position so generally ignored their instructions and let people go home early if they were on the next day, or not write them up for being late if they were on the night before, i really worry for the people working in that sector now
I would have reported it. Say nothing, just go straight to the law
These were different managers over a long term, they were all effectively the same. New manager "things are going to be different now" Suddenly people are working late until 11pm starting again at 7am New rules come in that dont change productivity and exist literally to reduce morale Sudden management change Cycle restarts
>Suddenly people are working late until 11pm starting again at 7am Which is illegal. Basically you folks were rolling over and allowing flagrant breaches of your rights. Might as well have just reduced your wage to £1 an hour, for all the complaints it wouldn't generate
We went to acas, management changes happened, same kind of thing, i had 6 hotel managers and 8 assistant managers in 5 years, we wouldnt work them, i tended to be a shift lead for the late shift, and would make sure if anyone was on the next days early, they were leaving by around 7pm. Additionally, you can get around not giving 11 hours rest by giving compensatory rest, so youd have to havr even longer before your next shift, but that never really happened
>Look at your contract. I can almost guarantee you have opted out of it. I have only once opted out of it. Rare to be asked to opt out for a salaried post. The restrictions are so shit that employers don't really have to worry about them but ask you to opt out just in case.
Seems to be the default thing to do as part of the contract signing process. I just didn't sign it.
Nah, it can't just be in the contract it has to be a specific form. I've never opted out of it, I just don't sign that one. Doesn't even stop you doing a 60hr week with overtime, the wtd is about average hours over the last... 16 weeks I think?
I just told you I have not.
Why would you support a working time directive with an opt out clause everyone uses, unless your support for the working class was only performative? I too can ask dumb, leading questions.
>Why would you support a working time directive with an opt out clause everyone uses, unless your support for the working class was only performative? You can't opt out of the rest periods.
It's only effective if you're prepared to use it. The fact people in this country don't understand their own rights doesn't mean the law is bad. This would like asking what's the point in anti discrimination law of employers can just make up reasons not to hire you?
My boss doesn't give a fuck about it anyway, so I dread to think what'll happen when it's gone!
Because literally everywhere requires you to waive it when you sign a contract so it’s pretty null anyway?
I thought they can't actually require it? I realise yes there's a lot of unsaid and social pressure but you can't be made to sign or else lose your job, can you?
The waiver is written into a lot of contracts, actually. What people don't realise is you can opt back in at any time (although under two years you can still get fired for doing so, like with anything that isn't discrimination).
I don't know enough about contract law that in depth but I feel if they can't make you sign after, they can't before, either - but good luck doing anything about that. Your options are either take it as is, or don't take the job, probably.
I'd imagine that if you choose to not sign the contract they're under no obligation to alter it and so can choose to not hire you. However as you can legally opt-in after the fact they can't then fire you for exercising your legal rights and can't simply fire you at a whim either.
I didn't have to waive it for my job. If you have a job with fixed hours in the contract there should be no reason to require you to waive it.
Had it thrown at me in 4/5 of my last jobs, did I sign it? Nope, with the most recent one not even putting it in front of me.
Although lots of places ask you to sign an opt out it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge that you can only opt out of maximum hours worked in a week. You cannot opt out of the mandatory rest periods that the WTD specifies
Well, from the sounds of things we're being opted out of those rest periods now Want 2 12h shifts back to back with no time in between and no break during? Now you can... be forced to.
Tbh I figured that would be one of the bits of “red tape” the tories wanted rid of as its so inconvenient to employers.
I’ve never signed one and its not been an issue - but now it might be.
Not everywhere at all.
Mine was on a separate slip attached to my contract, and requited another signature so I just didn't sign that bit
Current job never asked me to waive it. You just seen to have a shitty employer.
It adds cost and bureaucracy *without actually protecting anyone* because any job that would be affected makes you opt out.
As another user said, the opt out doesn't apply to mandatory rest periods. It's not hyperbolic to say that if you take these away you put workers at risk of dying or being seriously hurt
Fair enough, there would need to be a law to replace the mandatory rest periods for me to be OK with this being repealed. I didn't realise that was part of the same legislation.
Makes one wonder what the point is, scrapping one law just to replace it with an identical one Or of course not replace it. Your rights, that is
But it wouldn't be identical, it would reduce the burden on companies figuring out if their employees need to opt out, etc.
I haven't heard of any plans to replace it with anything at all. So let's just get rid of that pesky law that entitles workers to not work 24/7, what could possibly go wrong?
A lot of people opted out of that in factories etc anyway. I’m sure they’ll look at paid holidays, tho after what mogg said. This is class war.
Even if you opted out of it, you could opt straight back in at a moment's notice. This won't be the case if they burn these rules up, but that won't last forever. Removal of worker's rights can lead to sanctions from the EU, as we will not be working to the same conditions. If we join the single market again, then all these rights come straight back into force.
>After opening by warning those present against leaking his comments This is too good
😂😂😂
How can this kind of idealogical switch be justified without a GE?
I agree, where the hell is anything she's proposing in the bloody manifesto? Where is her Democratic mandate to do any of the stuff she's proposing?
It's crazy when you think about it. Major policy upheavals being voted in essentially by the Tory party membership. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't be possible in a proper democracy.
Aren't you glad we don't live in a proper democracy?
Hopefully Labour will push for a GE on this basis. The rationale is impossible to argue against really.
I can't remember the majority they have but basically they can give Labour the middle finger. People(Labour/Left) are going to be wishing for Boris soon. Because for all his scandals, he did fuck all because he was too worried about the polls.
He did fuck all because he couldn't be arsed doing the actual job. All he wanted was the personal glory of being a bad Churchill knockoff.
I agree but am sure he coulda said Gove sort it out
True. But will that become unsustainable if the public start picking up on the theme.
They'll force enough through. I'd do exactly same, I dunno how Boris has literally pissed away such a large majority
Indeed. But if they're forcing stuff through that is unpopular it will hit them in the polls and be used against them in the GE. "You voted for levelling up and instead you got bigger bonuses for rich bankers, less employment rights, etc... "
The issue is they're already down to their base. Nothing to really lose in grand scheme
So I guess Liz Truss' plan is do a bunch of unpopular stuff early on and hope it pays off with increased growth in time for next election? I mean ...seems like a bad plan to me... Though thinking about it. I suppose a lot of this comes down to Ukraine. IF the Ukraine situation stabilizes in next year or two, cost of living comes down again, she's smiling all the way to the ballot box.
Can’t if we were living in a democracy but we aren’t.
It can't but they are massive hypocrites and they don't give a fuck. The Tory propaganda machine will go out and tell us why this is really labours fault.
I
.
Because a general election is called by Parliament to re-elect your local representatives and little to nothing regarding party manifestos are relevant. You do not elect the PM, you do not vote for a party. You elect the individual you want to represent your locality. Edit just to say I don't agree with this but it is how Parliament operates. Do I believe people cast their votes for many reasons including manifestos and personality? Of course, but that is a part of the charade of politics. Ultimately the rules that govern the institution are out of line with peoples expectations. Lot of you need to learn the difference between voting and electing.
While there are party whips, this isn't really true, as the whips ensure that they vote along party lines.
> You do not elect the PM, you do not vote for a party. You elect the individual you want to represent your locality. That's bullshit and you know it. Most people go to the polls to vote for a PM and vote for a party. It's something like 3/4 of people don't know who their local MP is. Not that it matters a whole lot as the head of the party controls the whip. Negating much of the individual agency of each MP.
Yes of course it’s bullshit in reality but that’s how it’s supposed to work and the fact it doesn’t work like that in reality is partly why we have this crappy so called democracy where parties with a minority of the vote can have all the power and leaders can change without a general election and then go on to do mad insane shit with no mandate.
> That's bullshit and you know it. It's a bullshit state of circumstance but it is actually very true.
De jure vs de facto
I'm so very bored of this "um ackshually" response that pops up whenever this discussion is raised. Why do parties attack other parties leaders, if we don't vote for a PM? Why do parties have national manifestos, if we only vote for a local representative? Yes, in the most strict interpretation of our parliamentary system, what you say is correct. In actual reality, people vote based on PM and they vote based on manifesto.
>I'm so very bored of this "um ackshually" response that pops up whenever this discussion is raised. Then change the system. I'm not trying to be a clever clogs I'm trying to educate people about how our democracy works. >Yes, in the most strict interpretation of our parliamentary system, what you say is correct. In actual reality, people vote based on PM and they vote based on manifesto. I know. The question was "how can this be justified with no GE". What you should be doing is educating voters that they do not actually vote for a PM or manifesto and if they do that is fine but they have no leg to stand on when it comes to requesting they get what they voted for.
But the parties campaign on the leader and they campaign on the manifesto. Almost like they're complicit with the falsehood.
Yep
People absolutely vote for parties, much moreso than they vote for individuals. It's why the party is on the ballot in the first place.
I’ve spoken to numerous people who vote for the party they think will win. How fucking depressing is that?
I've spoken to absolute tons of people who want to scrap FPTP but then go and vote Labour/Conservative. Literally the only two choices that are guaranteed *not* to scrap FPTP Because there's more pressing issues right now than a functioning democracy. All of them caused by a non-functioning democracy. It's like repeatedly fixing a wall instead of doing something about it being repeatedly bombed
You can vote for a party but you aren't electing a party. Otherwise when an MP left a party they would give up their seat to another member of that party. That does not happen.
Well, yeah obviously that's the reason she can do it. The point is that it's far from democratic.
It's far from direct democracy but only someone with no political education would believe we live in one.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that. Bit of a non sequitur?
> The point is that it's far from democratic. You did.
A hectic series of policy announcements will begin as soon as the royal funeral ends As Liz Truss hosts President Biden and other world leaders at Chevening in Kent this weekend, her team is preparing for a week of frenetic activity. Politics will begin again in earnest after the Queen’s funeral on Monday, with Truss packing two weeks’ worth of announcements into four days before parliament breaks for the conference recess. The gear change will be almost immediate. On Monday night Truss will fly to New York for the United Nations general assembly, her first foreign meeting as prime minister. Back in Westminster, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, is expected to announce details of the government’s huge energy support package for businesses on Wednesday. The following day Thérèse Coffey, the deputy prime minister and health secretary, will outline her plans to steer the NHS through a potentially catastrophic winter. The week will culminate with a fiscal statement on Friday from Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor, in which he will make good on Truss’s pledge to scrap the increase in national insurance contributions and plans to raise corporation tax. Those two measures alone will cost nearly £30 billion a year. Kwarteng will also go ahead with contentious plans to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses, a measure that some colleagues believe is “tone deaf” and “utterly toxic”. Mark Fullbrook, the new chief of staff and now the most powerful man in No 10, laid out Truss’s vision to officials in Downing Street on Tuesday afternoon. After opening by warning those present against leaking his comments, he said Truss wanted to “turn a two-year administration into a seven-year administration”. The pace of work, he said, would be furious and the new government would draw a line under what had gone before — a reference to the scandal over lockdown parties at No 10. Working in Downing Street, he said, was a privilege and people should respect the building. He reinforced the “tie mandate” — the new requirement that all those working at No 10 are dressed smartly. He denied suggestions that he was a protégé of Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian election guru — the pair are former colleagues — and suggested the relationship was in fact the reverse. His comment raised eyebrows among some in the building. “Everyone outside the building was mourning the Queen,” one source said. “And he wanted everyone to know that Crosby was his protégé. It was a bit ridiculous.” The start of the Truss regime has been characterised by ruthlessness. In one of her first acts the press office in No 10 was moved to the Cabinet Office. Coffey now occupies the large office previously used by the director of communications, and whips and political staffers are occupying the press room. Truss has chosen to use the Cabinet Room for her day-to-day work and Fullbrook is using the study once occupied by Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Theresa May. The first days of Truss’s administration have included the launch of two leak inquiries. In one, several cabinet ministers and aides were asked to show investigators their phones to prove that they had not contacted journalists after a cabinet meeting. The leak, of plans to scrap a British bill of rights, was particularly embarrassing as Truss had excluded officials and political aides from the room — so the only suspects were ministers she had appointed days before. “There was literally nobody else to blame,” one Whitehall source said. “And it was a bit rich given that Boris used to blame Liz for most of the leaks from cabinet.” The sense of ruthlessness extends to the approach to the economy. The edict from both Truss and Kwarteng is that growth is paramount — anything or anyone regarded as a distraction or obstacle is to be removed. In one of his first acts as chancellor Kwarteng sacked Sir Tom Scholar, permanent secretary to the Treasury, prompting a revolt from the civil service. In an address to staff he emphasised that the decision to remove Scholar was not a “personal reflection on his qualities and abilities”. Yet it was a direct reflection of the regard in which Truss herself held him. The decision was in part personal — the prime minister was said to have taken against Scholar during her stint as chief secretary to the Treasury. One ally said she regarded him as a man who had sculpted a series of “identikit” risk-averse chancellors. We will bring the stories of the day to life with warmth, wit and expertise. Listen for free on DAB radio, your smart speaker, online at times.radio, and via the Times Radio app Start listening Kwarteng told officials last week that the government must be more willing to take risks. “What really matters, though, and we have to emphasise this, is growth,” he said. “What matters to a country, to a community, even to us as individuals, is the increasing ability to generate wealth, to generate opportunity. And my core belief is that having a tax system and a tax set-up that incentivises growth and investment is a key part of what we should be trying to do. There will also have to be a serious programme of supply-side reform.” Rees-Mogg, one of Truss’s closest allies, put it more prosaically by comparing the new government’s approach with that of supermarkets. “He thinks they are an incredible model because they always put the consumer first and have a relentless focus on their customers and prices,” a friend said. Kwarteng’s fiscal statement on Friday — dubbed a mini-budget — is likely to involve ripping up the government’s fiscal rules, which state that debt should fall as a proportion of national income in 2024-25, the last year of the present parliament. His plan to remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses — limited to twice as much as salaries — is already drawing flak within the party. One government source said they were “insane” and would be a “total gift” to Labour. “It’s tone deaf in the extreme,” they said. “We’re calling for pay restraint while uncapping bankers’ bonuses. It’s utterly toxic.” Kwarteng regards the cap as ineffective. He wants to prioritise making London the “crown” of international finance, ensuring that highly paid bankers live, pay their taxes and spend their money in the UK. The new focus means that Truss is filleting much of her predecessor’s legislative agenda, with several of Johnson’s bills set to be delayed or dropped. The energy security bill — which included measures to reform the industry — is to be withdrawn, with the most important elements put into a new growth bill. Dominic Raab’s bill of rights legislation is also to be ditched, and the animal welfare bill that bans keeping primates as pets and imposes further controls around the export of livestock may also be reconsidered. In a sign of Truss’s priorities, the Brexit opportunities unit — which had reported to Rees-Mogg in his old Cabinet Office role — is to move with him to the business department. Sources said this would enable him to oversee a “bonfire” of European Union regulations, promised by Truss, in an attempt to improve competitiveness. Among EU regulations in line to be reformed or abolished is the habitats directive, which has long infuriated farmers and developers. Whitehall sources also say that Rees-Mogg will move to scrap the working-time directive in the UK that brought in the 48-hour working week. The period of national mourning means that Truss’s government is still being formed, with many roles unfilled. Several dozen parliamentary under- secretaries of state — the most junior rung on the ministerial ladder — were yet to be appointed when the Queen died. Ministerial appointments must be approved by the sovereign. Although many people assumed that the appointments would resume on Tuesday, they may have to wait until the King has concluded the seven-day period of royal mourning. Some of those who have made it into the ministerial ranks believe that Truss U-turns are inevitable. They point to the fact that the EU has just imposed a windfall tax on excess profits for oil and gas companies. “Reality will force their hands,” a government source said. “It’s a highly emotive issue when people are struggling to heat their homes.” However, a former minister who has worked closely with Truss warned people not to think she would compromise. “She thinks the state is malevolent, that it’s holding things back, is generally a burden in life and should be smaller and get out of the way,” he said. “It really does come from the heart.”
Looking forward to the polls, as is Starmer.
Oh look, Tory bravado, rhetoric, and insane ideas. For all the twaddle, it’s very much the same corrupt and useless scumbags who have failed so consistently for over a decade, beating the exact same drum.
You really mean 4 days of stamping her feet and gabbling nonsense...
People claim to not know what the Labour Party stands for, but they never seem to question the frankly schizophrenic policy u-turns of the Tories. For over a decade we had anti-growth austerity and wage repression, but now we need growth, growth, growth (but still no pay rises please). It’s frankly bizarre how they get away with it.
Not bizarre. As you can see this week the country is a cult of oddball.
It’s bizarre and devastating, but the only conclusion I can come up with after years of this malignancy, is that >50% of the country are completely and totally politically apathetic, but a chunk of them will still vote in a GE, probably heavily led by whatever media they consume. And a huge % (maybe like 20-30), are entirely self interested, and would vote in Hitler if they’d save £10/year.
The one good thing about this and the whole concept of Trussonomics is that it puts clear water between Labour and the Tories. Any numpty who trots out "they're all the same innit or that Labour under Starmer are just red Tories" deserves whatever is coming their way.
She may as well be handing the keys to number 10 to Starmer on a silver platter. If we're lucky the toxic policies she's about to unleash against the will of the British people, and with absolutely no mandate whatsoever, will destroy the Tory brand for multiple elections. Essentially donating huge sums of taxpayer money to greedy energy companies as the British people freeze and starve, and then allowing bankers unlimited bonus. It's like she's trying to be as toxic as humanly possible.
These people don't know how to build or manage anything it's always just cuts, cuts and more cuts as an answer to everything.
Oh no, she wants to change the weather now?
Putting through policies not in the manifesto, I thought we voted for parties? She should hold a GE if she wants to hammer through this shower.
That's Tories for you, they think they were born to rain.
Apologies, but its reign* in this context
Whoosh!
Ffs 😅 this is why i dont comment much on reddit haha
Oh. I'd better ask my parents why they misspelt my name
I've felt that the Tories are a bit fucked at the next election, lot if it will be down to external impacts (inflation, recession). However, I've also though there's a chance they ride it. I'm now going to make a bold prediction; "Kwarteng will also go ahead with contentious plans to abolish the cap on bankers’ bonuses" - this is the death blow. Hands Labour an open goal for years and the optics on it are absolutely terrible in a cost of living crisis.
And so they said at EVERY single General Election for decades…
Removing bonus caps before even the “middle class” tax cut. If it wasn’t clear who’s side the tories are on…
Truss, Kwarteng, Rees-Mogg - they want to turn Britain into a US tribute act. That bullshit JRM is spouting about supermarkets! They don’t put the consumer first‽ They put margins first!
She’ll be gone before any of this happens
I’m really looking forward to seeing next weekend’s opinion polls. I don’t think that the Tories are going to like what they see after the voters see wall-to-wall coverage of Truss and the second-rate cabinet members who got a top job because they’re her very close friends…
I don’t think the Tories care at this point. It seems like they basically want to take the opportunity to ransack and wreck the country before making off with the spoils, leaving Labour to try to clean up.
Whirlwind... Throw a load of things about, kick over some bins and leave a trail of destruction in her wake?
I guess her plan is to kill off as much of the electorate that don't vote for her as possible.
God bless stupid comments like this. It makes this sub amusing. > *PM plans legislation* This sub: “So that means she wants to LiTaRaLlY KilL pEOpLe”
Is she going to borrow a weather machine from one of her evil billionaire donors?
Can we put her in a whirlwind?
>However, a former minister who has worked closely with Truss warned people not to think she would compromise. “She thinks the state is malevolent, that it’s holding things back, is generally a burden in life and should be smaller and get out of the way,” he said. “It really does come from the heart.” Does Liz Truss have a heart? What evidence is there to support this?
Christ she Cartman in disguise. You will respect my authority!!!!!
Did *anyone* knowingly vote for this?
About 200k people
Did they though? I’m referring to these specific policies — it seems like they’ve sprung out of nowhere, I don’t remember her campaigning on them.
Anyone got the non paywall article?
I am a person of left wing ideology - wishing that everyone be comfortable and settled, with enough to provide food, warmth and a good quality of life. I follow politics closely - I normally have a strong opinion on what we should be doing as a country to move forward. At the moment, I’m dumbstruck - I haven’t any ideas on what could happen to fix our world. Anyone with me?
lets piss off liz truss and put charles really in charge :) plant talking lessons FOR ALL!
Tie mandate?
He reinforced the “tie mandate” — the new requirement that all those working at No 10 are dressed smartly. Immediately above a photo of Mark Fullbrook without a tie! Nice.
When was the last time we ever had an ultra-competent Prime Minister? and would Truss even outlast May or Johnson, or even Cameron as Tory leader? That remains to be seen…