“In the UK, people cannot read most of the foreign press, so they are easy to influence by super-rich owners of newspapers and other media. Now that we are living in Belgium again, with a few shorts visits to the UK each year, it is very noticeable how narrow the information input is in the UK in comparison to that in Belgium, where everyone who has had an education can read two, three or more languages and can follow the news of neighbouring countries.”M Turner-Prins, 2020
“It is a truly shameful vignette of superhuman arrogance and toffishness and twittishness, I suppose. But you know, it was great fun at the time.” — Boris Johnson
It’s hard not to see the UK Euro elections as a Brexit Poll, Round 2. Perhaps some voters didn’t see it that way, but presumably Brexit party voters did (what else did Brexit Party mean?); and presumably the LibDem & Green swingers did too.
These are the England, Wales, Scotland results (Northern Ireland results not yet available) analysed as if it were a Brexit poll and on the assumption that 100% of Conservative voters were Pro-Brexit and that Labour is split 50/50:
“Split” covers primarily the Labour Party. Evidently there is a large part of the Labour Party that supports a People’s Vote; the YouGov poll survey (fieldwork between Dec 2018 and Jan 2019) puts the Labour Split as 71%/21%. Although I have treated a vote for Conservative as a vote for Brexit, the YouGov poll suggests that is only 69% true of Conservative voters.
Taking those two factors into account brings us closer to the picture described in the Jan 2019 YouGov survey, which has Brexit support at 40%, and Remain support at 46%.
|If there were a referendum today on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union, how would you vote?||Total||Con||Lab||Lib Dem|
|Remain a member of the EU||46%||26||71%||84|
|Leave the EU||39%||69||21%||11|
|Would not vote||6%||2||2||1|
Most other parties have an explicit stated position:
|The Brexit Party||31.6%||5,248,533||->Brexit|
|Scottish National Party||3.60||594,553||Remain|
|The Yorkshire Party||0.3%||50,842||Split|
|UK European Union Party||0.2%||33,576||Remain|
|Animal Welfare Party||0.2%||25,232||Remain|
|Women’s Equality Party||0.1%||23,766||Remain|
|Socialist Party of Great Britain||0%||3,505||–|
It’s been decades since software people started to think about how to cope with requirements changing during the course of an engagement, though other areas of endeavour have surely been doing it since the stone age. Literally.
The state of the art for software, and increasingly for other areas of IT, is Agile. Yet the recognition of agile in contractual relationships has lagged behind, which is odd given that a large part of IT is done by contracting someone.
When all is sunshine and daises this doesn’t matter. The time you really really want your written agreements to be right is when things go awry. If you’re doing business even with friends & family, it can help to have something in writing.
But how to write a contract for something when you know it’s going to change?
This problem came up in a linked-in architects’ discussion and I immediately reached for google to find my notes from Susan Atkinson’s presentation on Agile Contracts (I saw her present at a Rational User Group conference a couple of years ago). I reduced it to bullet points in /p1201/susan-atkinson-features-of-an-agile-contract, and she was good enough to drop by to correct & update it. She’s been developing an Evolve Contract Model with Gabrielle Benefield and the website should be up soon. Meanwhile there is a recent presentation on slide-share at Contract Metrics For Agile.
For those not yet convinced that there’s anything wrong with a waterfall-style contract and project, you can read the IEEE 2013 conference paper at http://www.slideshare.net/SusanAtkinson2/ieee-2013-the-flaws-in-the-traditional-contract-for-software-development. nb Open it full-page mode for easy reading.