BoJo buckles: UK govt to cut Huawei 5G kit use 'to zero by 2023' after pressure from Tory MPs, Uncle Sam UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has reportedly agreed to a plan that will entirely cut Huawei equipment from the nation's 5G networks within the next three years. The word from Britain late on Friday, strategically via the Guardian and Telegraph, is that Johnson has caved after months of pressure from the backbench of his …
Not if he can fix it so that no one votes against him he won't. Gerrymandering is an art form in some parts of the USA.
Then there are the difficulties registering to vote if you are of BME origin.
He may not get the majority of votes (Again), but he'll buy the electoral college and that is what counts
"Gerrymandering is an art form in some parts of the USA"
That is the most retarded statement I have seen today.
Presidential elections are a STATE affair and you can't gerrymander a state.
As for your assertion about BME difficulties in registration, it is a falsehood. Anyone capable of reading and signing their name can register to vote.
Is that an assertion, or a Democratic party talking point?
It's hard to tell. Did you read that in The Guardian, SMH, NYT or whichever is the equivalent in your country.
Like I wrote, if you can read and sign your name and I should add credibly assert citizenship, then registering is not difficult.
@"Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway", I am not so sure.
His continuing bluster and unsupported accusations whilst hiding behind presidential legal protection are likely to be eaten up by a fair percentage of the US electorate who are so full of hate and desperation after the decades of manipulation via the media that they cannot spot the truth if it was attached to their forehead and dangling before their eyes. Even when the balls drop they will still be willing to accept the blindness is due to distraction group X currently being blaimed rather than accept that they did it all themselves.
Brexit worked great for those that orchestrated it, even now where the UK is having to bite the pillow really hard the brexit supporters are still okay with it. Thus it is reasonable to consider that the US version will continue to wreck havoc for an extended period to come.
No.
Biden just apologized again, he's pathetic. There is zero chance Biden can take power from Trump.
To understand how pathetic, Kellyanne Conway said there was zero help from Biden on the Corona Virus. So Biden contacted the Whitehouse, to offer his help. An intern called him back to get him to call in. i.e. Trump > Kellyanne > Intern > Biden
Biden is truely pathetic. The intern would have told him what to do, and he would do it and Trump would be laughing.
Which makes you wonder why Putin only prepared ONE attack package against ONE Democratic candidate. [That corrupt prosecutor's false claim that Trump was trying to force the Ukrainian PM to endorse].
There was no planned attack package against any other candidate, look at the improvised attack on Bernie Sanders, "Putin wants Bernie to win", is the best they could fabricate quickly, slip shod and clearly unprepared. Indicating they knew who the DNC's candidate would be long before the primaries. Biden.
The only transition of power scenarios, involved Bernie Sanders, and then only with Sanders leading a pitch fork mob to eject a loser that refuses to cede power.
Trump will *not* be gone, Jan 20th 2021. They won't even have an election if the early polls show Republican losses, they'll close the polls, as a safety measure citing Covid19.
Republicans better buckle up, your team-red no longer need your votes.
...look at the improvised attack on Bernie Sanders, "Putin wants Bernie to win", is the best they could fabricate quickly, slip shod and clearly unprepared. Indicating they knew who the DNC's candidate would be long before the primaries. Biden.
.
To be fair, they had seen how the Media fell for the Russiagate dementia, leading to a plethora of dumb wishful thinking 'Trump will be out in a month' scenarios --- in addition to the host of domestic 'Trump will be out in a month' theories --- and realised tapping the deep-seated well of anti-Russian xenophobia amongst the American Democratic hordes is a certain win.
Dread Vlad also wanted Tulsi Gabbard to win: according to the old loony Trumpo defeated --- surely the most embarrassing shame in history, that one was of such a calibre one lost to Trump --- Tulsi was just like Donnie, a Russian Agent of Influence, groomed by KGB Vlad.
"To understand how pathetic, Kellyanne Conway said there was zero help from Biden on the Corona Virus. So Biden contacted the Whitehouse, to offer his help. An intern called him back to get him to call in. i.e. Trump > Kellyanne > Intern > Biden"
There doesn't seem to be any organised "opposition" in the US. The "losing" party seems to be just an aggregation of people not in Government randomly coming together at various times for various reasons. I wonder if it might work better if the the US adopted the UK model of a formal "Opposition" with an actual "Shadow Cabinet". This puts the opposing party into a more formal position with spokespeople on specific topics and whose job it is to know that topic and prepares the opposition for Government if and when they next win, rather than the apparent scramble to sack/appoint people after the elections are declared.
Having said that, It may not work in the US where partisan politics is so strongly delineated it seems that even your choice of whether to wear a facemask in public is dictated by your party alignment rather than a consideration of medical facts and your own and others health needs.
Be slow to take the alleged reasons as being the true ones.
China has grown a lot in economic and political power, it is doing a lot of things that we do not like: interning Muslims, reducing freedom in Hong Kong, internal surveillance, ... and lastly threatening the West's world dominance.
You can either believe that international relationships should be warm & cuddly and all countries work to mutual benefit; or that it is dog eat dog and every country acts to achieve dominance. If you are weak (economically, militarily) then you try to cuddle. If you are strong then countries seem to try to dominate; the USA has done that for years (even before Trump's "America first" policy). China is increasingly trying to dominate.
So how should others react to China's bullying actions ? Do we let it continue and become ever stronger or do we clip its wings ?
It seems clear to me that the Huawei debacle is about clipping China's wings.
The USA cannot just do so, World Trade Organization rules prohibit discrimination between trading partners, but provides exceptions for environmental protection, national security, and other important goals. So a reason needs to be found: security is a good excuse.
If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. This reduces the money that we send to China and benefits Western manufacturers - although, sadly, probably not any British ones -- although Brexit might (maybe) allow the UK government to help such initiatives -- if they can see that clearly.
I leave this to you to decide if stopping Chinese dominance and rebuilding domestic manufacturing (at a price) is a good thing or not.
>There are no WTO rules, the WTO doesn't have an army - the only way the WTO could enforce any rules was to make economics ministers feel guilty and with the US boycott of the WTO court they don't even have that.
If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. At greater expense which will slow the rest of the economy. And the same rules will be applied everywhere else, France will insist on only buying French kit, so no Rolls Royce engines or BAe wings on Airbus. China will insist that any 3rd world country that is getting any Chinese investment doesn't buy any western kit.
> If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. At greater expense which will slow the rest of the economy
Ermm, no. If we buy Western kit, we're circulating money in the Western economy. Growth is all about circulating money, not sending it out of the economy.
So you benefit in the UK if you pay 2x as much for cell service because the kit got bought from people in America?
What if the American workers aren't even the same skin colour as you, or the same branch of christian - does that still count ?
"The USA cannot just do so, World Trade Organization rules prohibit discrimination between trading partners, but provides exceptions for environmental protection, national security, and other important goals."
Au contraire.
1: You might want to look up who wrote the WTO rules, as in who was the main person and what he does for a living now.
2: The USA can simply leave the WTO and bring home the fleet for a while. I sort of hope they do. The carnage will be epic. NATO is already a dead duck, so Europe will be drowning in its own shit.
Disclaimer: I am deeply invested in Europe. I have decided to sell up and leave.
We have the engineers and could rebuild our manufacturing. It would do us good to do something techy even if it costs us more. Buy British Built. I was never a fan of globalisation.
Disclaimer: I am a bit, well not racist exactly as I am an anti-racist, but biased to an extreme by nationality. Nationalities do have personalities, and some personalities grate. For example I don't like Italians in general. Love the Spanish and French. I have an Italian friend, a lovely gay guy, but it took me ages to overcome my bias. I admitted my bias, we argued it and now we just joke about genitalia. Don't like Australians and can't even claim to have an Australian friend - in fact the more I meet the less I like them. Oh, I have a brilliant Australian cousin, forgot about her.
I had dealings with a screed of foreign students a decade ago. Hugely different personalities by nationality. Bear in mind they all would be fairly rich to study in Scotland and nobody poor as me likes rich people. Some of them were lovely - the Finns were to die for. The overbearing unbearably condescendingly arrogant ones were US, Chinese and English. No offence to you lot, like I said these were rich kids. I remember one of the Chinese guys said animals are just a resource to be used like dirt. Aye, see where that got us.
There is no question that it was/is reasonable to be suspicious of Huawei in it's relationship to the Chinese Communist Party, but the whole issue always came back to fact that GCHQ closely examined Huawei communications services in the UK, and with new stance of Boris Johnson administration of allowing only "periphery" 5G services from Huawei, one can challenge the Tory party and others for being mentally tainted by dysfunctional Trump administration into following Trump's demands that UK bow to almost every US proclamation, no matter how unreasonable and without supporting facts.
Why is not the UK government concerned about American national Security Agency (NSA) spying - supposedly for terrorism, but decidedly for Industrial espionage as well - on Britain, and other allies for more than fifty years as was shown by exposure of US National security documents via Edward Snowden in 2013 and even more recently. Trump is desperate and anxious to distract from the horrible job being done by his cult administration in handling the Covid-19 pandemic and every other catastrophe of governance he has exuded during his three years in office.
I do not understand why the UK incessantly and blindly follows the Yanks in everything they tell Brits they must do. There is a litany of technological disasters the UK has had in embracing terrible Microsoft technologies and other American companies' products and services, without evidentiary reason, and it should stop.
Every year for the past three decades I have witnessed Brits, Europeans and every other nation for that matter being denigrated by vast amounts of Americans when it receives any foreign comment or criticism, no matter how constructive, as an ungrateful gesture since "US alone saved the planet in World War II".
Want proof, just watch every USA produced movie about the War, from John Wayne epics forward?
Huawei is not "the"enemy. Ignorance and stupidity are. The company, it's actions and services need constant and scrupulous evaluation and examination to satisfy UK and other western nations it is acting within regulations, laws and using good technological practices.
@"We have the engineers and could rebuild our manufacturing", it would take a very long time to repair the damage done over the last 40 years, what quality engineers remaining could indeed be moved away from Engineering to teach instead but in the mean time the existing engineering being done would have no experts and would stop generating external income to feed the masses of cheap semiskilled labour that have now become the vast majority of the UK work force. Are you proposing culling/deporting those that consume but cannot help with the project of getting the UK back upon it's feet?
@"I was never a fan of globalisation." without dealing with the rest of the world then how are we going to buy things like food, materials etc given that our population consumes more than we can grow and after what materials we had remaining have been sold off to maintain the standards of living for those that put the UK last.
If the UK really put STEM first and removed the blockages that are allowed to be imposed by those that put a higher value on classical languages than STEM then perhaps within 40-80 years then the UK could return to leading the world. The fact is that when this country lead the world they did is off the back of the colonies where high population and hence low wages were the norm means that everyone would have to get on board and put all their wealth behind and that just won't happen.
Sadly those that currently hold the UK wealth are more likely to move out taking the wealth with them at the first indication that they will stop controlling how the UK is run.
The Nationalism you seek only really works where their is a common culture and identity, what used to be "British" has been suppressed for so long that it exists, now, only in the rose tinted memories of those looking back on their naive childhood and wondering where it all went to.
I think we have evidence from countries like China (either one), Vietnam, Singapore, etc. that it is possible to rapidly build a first class industrial economy without colonies.
We can't produce enough food in this country, because we don't try. Our agricultural industry maximises profits not food production. I would guess that the WW2 productivity of allotments is still well ahead of current agribusiness.
What we need is a government made up of STEM experts and a supportive electorate. We would also need an entirely different model of management in our industries.
@"I think we have evidence from countries like China (either one), Vietnam, Singapore" very different situations to UK, average intelligence, existing infrastructure / education base and presence of external investors along with physical location.
The UK got it's empire via sail powered war ships and guns with which they grabbed a third of the world, the same third with some of the best thinkers in over populated countries. They lost their captive brain colonial power and then spent the time up until now selling their lead to anyone with money.
Since WW2 we had the brain drain and active attacks against the UK manufacturing and engineering base to destroy the unions and the idea that the workers should have a say, such that we would have to put it all back again without the cash influx that your countries obtained. Those with the brains to leave are unlikely to return without a significant change in the world status quo, it has been too long for them to dream of going home to what is now an intentional third world country.
It would be nice to think that it was all English brains that did the invention but the evidence is that it was the wealth here that brought inventors looking for investors along with raiding the colonies, that had been civilised much longer than the UK, for tech and re-branding it as British invention.
No offence, but I thought my post was weird and your reply is weirder. I would debate you more if you put your name to it, but for a start I don't think Britain should lead the world. I'm guessing we should be aiming for about 60th. I agree with a lot of what you say though.
My main point, maybe too buried, is that we should be able to be self-reliant in manufacturing and as you say food production. The recent PPE crisis proves that.
I hate it when people say, "British people won't or can't do that job" - we always did. Just pay us or train us, don't undermine our living standards with cheap imported labour.
Dyson in Singapore is not short of a bob or two.
That Virgin scammer, he's about to launch into space while trying to con the tax payer. End that nonsense.
@"British people won't or can't do that job" has been the justification for the destruction of the welfare system when the reality was that "at our unreasonable price" was intentionally omitted. I remember a number of news articles where people were decrying their inability to pay below the minimum wage so as to keep making the same profits. That they should have to pay a reasonable cost for the service required seemed not to be a concept they were familiar with. They believed that they had a right to be in business sitting in an office were others did all the work and they took all the profit for themselves without investing anything back.
Since that time the taxes have continued to go up but the social benefit that the money was collected for have decreased in quality and quantity showing to me at least that things are no longer running for the benefit of the majority of tax payers who no longer have any safety net if things go wrong.
How about instead of tax breaks for people who already have enough money they instead use that cash to promote innovation and create industry to bring cash in from outside rather than yet more service jobs requiring little skill and for low wages and hence low tax returns?
If any haven't noticed that the Conservative administrations --- including New 'Welfare To Work !' Labour, which did it from Neo-liberal free market beliefs, and the SNP in Scotland --- from Lady Thatch on, and slightly preceding her with the Callaghan government, have deliberately degraded the Welfare State so that it does not help the lazy undeserving poor but is concentrated on the deserving 'Those in Genuine Need Only along with rising TB rates and other Victorian Values, I would think them remarkably oblivious.
It is what they promised from Lady Thatcher through Cameron, and continue to promise, and achieved together with the destruction of most of the post-war nationalizations, and is what they are most proud of.
They have nothing else to congratulate themselves on.
.
.
Apart from Brexit and romping hand-in-hand on the bright sunlit uplands of tomorrow.
OK. Oblivious here. Numbers?
Suggested examples - I don't know if any of these are true or not:
1) More people in need and spending the same amount or less - or not proportionately more?
2) Spending on the wrong sorts of welfare?
3) Wrong definition of welfare?
4) Can't trust the published numbers because <...>?
5) Spending on rich pensioners not poor workers (OK that's a refinement of 2)?
Also, noted: We've only had conservative governments since Jim Callaghan took over from Harold Wilson.
I cannot think of a source beyond the Government figures which I would suggest have been manipulated since the start of the '80s,
One thing I do know from working at the local UBO again in the '80 was that a study of how many were actually defrauding the benefit system across the UK was 6% total and this was during the time of the Algerians signing on illegally multiple times and shipping the cash back as M&S jumpers was reported in the news.
Having worked at the UBO I understand that there were some people who abused the system but they were the same small minority that will always abused any compassion in society. The vast majority were people who had just been unlucky or disregarded and were desperate to return to working status.
That the Torys switched the numbers around in their publications is why any actual record is likely to be corrupted with intentional bias. When I worked there it was to help people in need, now the equivalent job is to avoid doing so and that has had an effect on who is still willing to be the face of the system and the level of protection the new workers require. Where I lived had 5 full time tramps who were not criminals in anyway but just fell between the tracks of mental health due to addiction, they even had an article in the local paper when the last died complete with news reports of him chasing after a woman who dropped her handbag and other events that contradict the current view of the homeless.
Now we have hotels full of people without housing whilst the Government and press are saying they do not exist and where they appear to it is just scam artists..
You would imagine that the majority of people would spot the contradiction but they have been taught to blame their low take home, high tax on the "benefit cheats" rather than those that pay them less so those who do not need the money can have more.
I think I understand - and thank you.
I am sure I could never work in an UBO as I find people difficult to interact with. I'm not 'on the spectrum' unless the spectrum is very wide but I'm not good with people.
I understand that the definition of 'welfare' has been changed over the years and that can make it difficult to compare numbers before and after the changes. Some of the changes are/were purported to achieve consistency of reporting across Europe - though it would not surprise me to find countries interpreting the rules to their best advantage.
The Attlee government started to bring in the findings of the Beveridge report and effectively codify what had been local government responsibilities before. On searching for numbers I found the https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk website which says it draws from Government data. It suggests that in terms of % of GDP or inflation adjusted pounds the only administrations which did not increase welfare spending were Tony Blair's and Cameron/May. There certainly does not seem to be a consistent Labour vs Conservative tug-o-war over welfare... however that is defined.
I seem to have got us sidetracked - the article is about banning a particular company from being a key supplier... but I got triggered by a throwaway comment about 'destruction of the welfare state'.
Tough one. It's especially bad in the US, looking at the wages in the service sector. Compare that to Norway, where waiters are being paid ok. Not huge amounts of money, but still. Same with other lines of work, most wages are not insultingly low nor excessive - except for the oil and gas sector, where wages are (were?) sky high. Norway is a bit special, since benefits are reliant on the income generated by oil exports (and they do a good job with actually not overspending, and being able to save some money for the future).
The question is, what difference in terms of wages are we willing to accept? My current job pays little more than the previous one (same company) but comes with extra responsibilities and stress. Maybe the little extra pay is not worth that.
But yeah, I'm with you on the low wages. There are so many people woefully underpaid (health care, child care,...)
"Compare that to Norway, where waiters are being paid ok...The question is, what difference in terms of wages are we willing to accept?"
It's wealth inequality not income inequality that sucks. But yeah, a German ex went to Norway to become a street cleaner and had a far better quality of life than me. Norway saved it's oil money, we gave ours to 'The City'. And Trident.
When I first moved to the Netherlands my managing director threw a garden party because he'd just bought his house. It was a big deal there, but basically just the same sort of home my parents live in. (Not fancy, former council, and they never ran a large company)
In my limited experience the lower the wealth inequality, the happier and more peaceful a society is.
I went on holiday to California in 1986 and turned down a job there because the inequality scared me silly. Beggars outside of skyscrapers. An American ex demanded I marry her when Trump got elected, and I laughed and told her that was no longer possible because I don't earn enough. She has $25k savings, I have £0 savings, and she is terrified - the difference being healthcare.
Someone give me a job paying £20k for a year so I can marry her and bring her here, and I'll pay it all back and you can sack me once I'm married.
I'm actually between the cracks in our social safety net now to mix metaphors. I get housing benefits for a flat but don't want to risk that by going on to the Universal Credit, so no other benefits like dentistry or you know, food. It's easy to get food, but increasingly fraught to get a bottle of malt and a packet of fags.
ETA: Never used a food bank or charity. I meant skipping and growing.
Universal Credit * now includes Housing Benefit, now taken away from local council administration to do down local councils, and is paid to the recipient as a lump sum with the living allowance each month [ unless the landlord requests it be paid direct to themselves as used to be the norm ].
But I hear you on not risking housing benefit: Long ago I once stayed unemployed a short while, terrified of eviction if housing benefit stopped.
.
* Devised by the mighty brain of Iain Duncan Smith.
Aye, I was homeless for a long while, Over a decade outdoors, far longer depending how you define it. Apart from housing benefit I've not claimed anything for years.
I was planning all winter on signing on for Universal Credit in March, so I could get glasses and dental care and if I did lose my flat at least it wouldn't be snowy so I could save some of my belongings. Then covid, and suddenly the Universal Credit line is more popular than Tinder.
I'm fine, I'm with my parents. I was always fine except twice when I nearly died.
Build it here will NEVER come back so long as the people that run companies are the beancounters and shysters who infest the upper manglement.
Along with the spineless politicians who seem to worship the ground said beancounters walk on.
Take Triumph motorcycles... bought out in 1984 when it finally went pop, the new owner ploughed anywhere from 50 million to 100 million into new designs, new plant and new manufacturing, and finally began making a profit in 1995-96 (as I remember).
Can you imagine pitching that to the stock market? or to a bunch of vulture capitalists?
10 years before any chance of a payback? hahahhahahahah fuck off.
Then we deal with how manufacturing is viewed in this country... somethign akin to a bunch of strike minded lazy bastards hitting stuff with a hammer in some god forsaken northern mill town (and dont get me started on the islington socialists who think because they did 2 weeks of work experience , that somehow makes them working class)
But why dont people go into manufacturing more (besides the points raised above) ... its mostly to do with the pay.
In order to do my job of CNC programing/robot wrangling , I need someone who is fairly well educated, and can cope with the 4 yrs of training, PC experience, CAD/CAM experience, able to learn the dark arts of CNC(including tooling and fixture design) and be happy with their hands in a oily dirty sump trying to remove a stuck filter.
The return on that is about 25K basic, rising to 30K, with overtime on top when qualified
The same guy goes through A levels and uni in a media design course ends up 22-25k starting rate.
Does'nt contest does it?
And finally the welfare state that views people on welfare as more worthless scum except the 2 biggest bills in welfare are pensions and IN WORK benefits, in other words we use government welfare benefits so that stingey companies can pay workers min wage, and then use my tax money to undercut my employer..
The UK is broken, and its been broken for the benefit of large companies and the parasites who hang off them.
The required skills you are quoting were ones I picked up along the way on a number of "Engineering" courses during '80s along with virtually every vocational electronics course up to degree requiring me to make yet another a plum bob, drill stand etc along with material science which was interesting but included with the rest because Electronic Engineers were more expensive for the uni to employ that other disciplines.
Technical drawing to drafting in autoCAD for my sister's company when I switched from electronics to computing but I still remember the tedious vocational lessons that included remembering the names of all the parts on machine shop kit for repair ordering along with the cutting angles and speeds that I haven't used since.
Like everything else the time served training I obtained has disappeared to be replaced by chancers teaching from a book/pilfered presentations also written by chancers.
I met a few of the people I took the courses with who had since lost limbs at work without compensation of any kind so you can imagine how many that went the same route as myself are willing to go back into the subject in the current working environment. I met up with a sheet metal MD who was complaining about lack of skilled people to employ but what he was really saying was that he was unwilling to either train or pay a reasonable rate for the skills.
I mention all this because there are others like me that have done different things since they learnt the skills you require, perhaps you are looking and advertising in the wrong place for your new staff.
"saying was that he was unwilling to either train or pay a reasonable rate for the skills."
I can sort of understand the unwillingness to invest in training when it's seen as a good thing to move on every few years. People who stay in a job and get good at it are seen as doing something wrong by not moving on. Some employers won't even consider an applicant unless they've got at least have a dozen previous employers listed on the CV. My entire CV consists of 4 employers. Two of those jobs could be expanded out by including the company names changing through buy-outs. I think it comes to 9 in total, but personally I think of it as four because I got full employment continuity, including terms of service and "continuous employment" with reference to long service extra holiday entitlement and possible future redundancy payouts. Current employer is much bigger than most of my previous employers and the in-house job adverts are never-ending, especially in sales, marketing, HR and account management.
"I can sort of understand the unwillingness to invest in training when it's seen as a good thing to move on every few years", this is purely the creation of bad managers not the staff.
It has been my experience that if you stay with the same employer for more than 3 years that bad management come to see you as furniture i.e. unworthy of recognition. That anyone with children is going to want to keep things stable seems not to be recognised where the same management rely upon laying off and employing new staff to be recognised as "not furniture" themselves.
I left a few jobs in disgust of how I was treated and repeatedly afterwards heard that the companies had either gone out of business and/or had major changes to their management structure and staffing levels. This to me suggests that UK middle management are responsible for many UK companies going bust and is IMHO the product of allowing these employees, that bring in no income, operating so as to improve their own employ-ability over that of the company. I would further suggest that the English idea that the sign of success is not having to work any more is a factor in this problem
The Upper management want to improve their wages/standing and hence emplyability by managing more lower managers who also want to follow suit. This, in my experience, goes on until the management tree is saturated with people who spend their time creating red tape and laying claim to any improvement that comes from those below them. The company profits eventually drop to the point where the highest tier start asking where all the money has gone whereupon they lay off a load of lower managers they are afraid of along with some random workers. There is then a short pause before the management saturation starts again ( via that bloke we laid off used to handle this and I can't do it whilst doing this other thing I have grabbed for myself and made to seem important) and is repeated until the whole thing eventually falls over.
So I would suggest to any company owner that doesn't want their company to falter/fail is that they need to maintain the effort it took to get the company going and continue to managing it themselves or the end result is going to be failure. When the management they employ are the ones that believe that moving on to a higher paying job before their fkups get noticed is the reason for IMHO many UK companies failing.
What should be self evident is that the real sign of success in business is still being in control of a company making money, putting your trust in others who have their own agendas, at odds with the needs of your company is your failure.
IMHO if you want the best managers then qualifications/experience mean nothing, natural leaders are innately able to represent your needs and that of the people below them so that everyone is happy, aware and productive. If you can find someone like this then it beats 100 book management, which is likely what you will end up with rather than just the one right person if you go purely on qualification and experience. If you want to find one then look first to your own ranks because other employers will not take kindly to you looking at theirs. The people you are looking for are the ones that their peers seek out for advice, thus they are already knowledgeable and guiding your workers and do not actually need any synthetic authority to be respected. If they can understand your needs and are capable of managing the work load then these people of are much better investment than any outsider in terms of management suitability, if they cannot represent you fully then put them as high in your management structure as their abilities/understanding will allow and build the rest around them until you get more. Make sure to look after these guys as your competitors will be looking to steal them away from you, if you want to know how the company is doing then these are the people to speak to since they have stayed with you long enough to have a perspective and because they are tied to the company via friendship rather than just money.
"robot wrangling"
I would work for you for free just to hear stuff like that. I used to love lathes but CNCs are the Ms Pacman of the lathe world. Cutting edge, kind of.
I agree with you 100% - I actually agree with you a lot more but there are mathematicians here who'd grumble.
Yep, they did start making bikes in the UK again. I have two of them in my Garage.
They had to move most production to Malaysia in order to keep their costs down.
Recently, they announced that all but one model will now be made in Malaysia and that there would be redundancies at Hinckley as a result.
Same old, same old.
Don't mention a UK company with only half the story. There will be people like me who will pick you up on it in a flash.
Remember discount GoogleFi, discount fiber, free citywide wireless, free Bluetooth beacon databases, free whitespace WiFi technology AND a free national whitespace database, free browser, free phone OS, free GPS accuracy enhancement, balloon Internet relays...
l'm shocked that they haven't offered up 5G cellular equipment yet. So much data is going unwatched.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
