Student Riots [Archive] - Page 2

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 01:48

There is a trainee at work who reminds me of the person I probably would have been if I hadn't have gone to university. She is extremely shy, she doesn't really want to interact with client's or us for that matter and she has previously refused to go out to a client premises if she hasn't had time for her mum to go on a reconnaissance drive there before hand with her. In less than a year she could be a qualified accountant on a salary of around £30k but be 'too expensive' in terms of charge out rates to do the job's she feel's comfortable with. If I was the boss I would be wanting to sack her the moment she gets her exam results. That sounds harsh and cruel but in reality she is a dead weight to the firm. I think the university experience is one that could have either made her or unfortunately broken her.

Personally, I think university made me but hey what do I know. I'm just a boring accountant. :p

I think that is more just this one girl, after all what Uni did the likes of Bernie Ecclestone or Alan Sugar go to? And they aren't exactly shy retiring types are they?

I remember something my Grandfather said to me after I qualified 'well done you'll never be rich now' which at the time I thought was a bit of a kick in the teeth; but in hindsight he was spot on, professional people are rarely ubber rich, comfortable yes but there's not many professional millionaires.

Sounds like she needs to invest in a Tom Tom.

Is she pretty? Might be able to help her - kill her or cure her LoL

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 01:49

p.s. What are you doing up at this time of night BM? My excuse is that I'm a student :p :

Got up late today, v late, so day/night all back to front

insomnia etc

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 02:06

To be honest I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail because it's already covered in ****. What a sorry excuse for a newspaper, predominantly read by bigoted moronic excuses for members of society.

It's that bad that it makes me feel so strongly. It's not bias if it's reporting is that bad.

The Telegraph is more acceptable in my view.

Telegraph is that rarest of thing an honest newspaper, things like the Guardian and Independent are more biased than The Sun, Mail just in opposite direction. But a lot of folk are too dim/blinkered to see/understand that.

Where ever possible I refuse to even look at the Express as they showed Bandini dead slumped in his Ferrari - before my time but I remember my dad saying that was why he cancelled it and switched to the Mail.

Yes Prime Minister summed up the papers nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

AndySpeed

14th December 2010, 08:30

I see your point. You can get a more balanced view of affairs by combining reading the guardian, independent, telegraph. But as soon as you try and do the same with the Mail it serves only to infuriate, scandalise and wind people up.

I would read the telegraph more often if it wasn't such a stupid, awkward size. I don't care if convention says a broadsheet is more prestigious - it isn't and it's about time they made it more ergonomical!

But I digress, back to tuition fees (or the policing side of it)...

This gem of a quote (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1337432/Tuition-fees-rioters-signal-end-passive-policing.html#ixzz184YGQemg) by a Mail reporter: "This politically correct police training needs to change. It is no good always saying how officers should be non-confrontational. Criminals need to be confronted if they are to be defeated."

This is the same newspaper that at claims to support civil liberites so strongly. Despite the police doing things like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm).

Not directly linked but not far off. I don't think you should be telling the police to be more confrontational!

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 09:28

But as soon as you try and do the same with the Mail it serves only to infuriate, scandalise and wind people up.

But I digress, back to tuition fees (or the policing side of it)...

This gem of a quote (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1337432/Tuition-fees-rioters-signal-end-passive-policing.html#ixzz184YGQemg) by a Mail reporter: "This politically correct police training needs to change. It is no good always saying how officers should be non-confrontational. Criminals need to be confronted if they are to be defeated."

This is the same newspaper that at claims to support civil liberites so strongly. Despite the police doing things like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm).

Not directly linked but not far off. I don't think you should be telling the police to be more confrontational!

I find the Guardian website the most infuriating site about - esp the job section - 80k for worthless non jobs makes my piss boil.

Good example, somewhere between the BBC and the Mail lies the truth.

If this girl really wanted to keep away from the violence then she could have done quite easily, if she thought it was going to be peaceful then she's an idiot who shouldn't be going to Uni, shovelling chips at Maccy Ds seems more her level.

She should think herself lucky it wasn't abroad with water cannons.

ArrowsFA1

14th December 2010, 09:56

Ahh so if it is Mail or Telegraph it has to be wrong...
Not at all, but do you believe that the Telegraph's headline ("David Beckham Degree at Staffordshire") accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree they were discussing in their report?

Hondo

14th December 2010, 10:18

In general:

Students make excellent protesters because they are enthusiastic, strong and stupid. They do not yet have enough real life experience in the fine art of self support to appreciate the flaws in the Utopian philosophies they were taught in school.

Every time a protest gets out of hand, it is blamed on a "small group of outside agitators". Bullcrap. I never see protesters trying to restrain these agitators and I don't see the protesters stopping their protest and going home once the agitators have started. They feed on each other.

Nobody cares about your protest. When you cause damage to public and private property and interfere with everyday comings and goings you lose the sympathy of the common citizen. The politician doesn't care as long as he gets re-elected to office.

Get used to it. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Governments can no longer sustain all the social expenditures and riots of this kind will be happening everywhere. While these budget cuts are a start, in truth, massive chunks of government need to be done away with.

You've got to hand it to the Brits. When they show up to a protest they always have very nice, uniform, professionally done signs mounted on new, clean sticks.

In Specific:

I see no reason why someone who stands to benefit the most from an advanced degree shouldn't be expected to contribute more towards obtaining that degree. I don't know too many people that expect to get a Ferrari for the same price as a Ford even though in general use they serve the same purpose.

Jacking the royals was a really bad idea.

As usual, the "students" have done themselves no favors.

Dave B

14th December 2010, 10:57

I see no reason why someone who stands to benefit the most from an advanced degree shouldn't be expected to contribute more towards obtaining that degree.
They always have: if you get a high-paid job after graduation you by default pay more tax than a low-earner. Chances are you spend more too, and therefore pay more VAT. The trouble with this massive rise in fees is that the government now want two bites of the cherry.

Retro Formula 1

14th December 2010, 12:16

They always have: if you get a high-paid job after graduation you by default pay more tax than a low-earner. Chances are you spend more too, and therefore pay more VAT. The trouble with this massive rise in fees is that the government now want two bites of the cherry.

The fundemental fact is that if you don't go to Uni and are a high earner, you pay exactly the same and if you are a low earner who has not been to University, you still contribute to the fees that benefit a high earning graduate.

Isn't it fairer to say that if you are a high earning graduate then you contribute a fair amount for the benefit but if you are a low earning graduate, you don't?

I have not heard a single, logical, fairer alternative that what is being proposed other than it's not fair on people that receive a financial benefit from a degree to be expected to pay it back and instead non-graduates on low incomes should subsidise them.

If you ask me, the principal you are defending Dave seems about as right wing and anti-socialist as you could hope to get.

Dave B

14th December 2010, 12:25

The fundemental fact is that if you don't go to Uni and are a high earner, you pay exactly the same and if you are a low earner who has not been to University, you still contribute to the fees that benefit a high earning graduate.

That's society: sometimes we contribute to things that don't directly benefit us but are good for the population as a whole. Some of my tax goes on services I'll never use, but I recognise the overall benefit.

Isn't it fairer to say that if you are a high earning graduate then you contribute a fair amount for the benefit but if you are a low earning graduate, you don't?
That already happens, the low-earning graduate won't pay as much tax as the high-earning one. Which seems perfectly fair.

I have not heard a single, logical, fairer alternative that what is being proposed other than it's not fair on people that receive a financial benefit from a degree to be expected to pay it back and instead non-graduates on low incomes should subsidise them.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the debate then.

If you ask me, the principal you are defending Dave seems about as right wing and anti-socialist as you could hope to get.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the debate then.

Mark

14th December 2010, 12:27

I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.

Dave B

14th December 2010, 12:38

I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.
:up:

That's my whole point about "society". All taxpayers fund universities, whether they attend or not, on the basis that it benefits the country as a whole.

Retro Formula 1

14th December 2010, 14:01

I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.

If I wanted to be dismissive then I would claim you misunderstand the debate ;) but I will answer with my opinion if it helps.

Every child in this country is entitled to a level of education. That level allows them to complete GCSE's, A-Levels and vocational courses.

Society benefits from having an educated workforce and it is open to everyone.

If you make the CHOICE of attending University, you are entitled to do so and under these proposals, can do so for FREE. You do not have to pay any money whatsoever which means that anyone that wants to progress themselves from any walk of life can do.

After leaving Uni, IF you earn over a particular amount, you will be expected to pay back a proportion of what your University Education costs. Not more than you can afford and after a set time, any outstanding balance is WRITTEN OFF.

It is not a God given right to a University education and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.

Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 14:09

Not at all, but do you believe that the Telegraph's headline ("David Beckham Degree at Staffordshire") accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree they were discussing in their report?

If it highlighted the nonsensical degrees being dished out then it was justified yes.

You've got to hand it to the Brits. When they show up to a protest they always have very nice, uniform, professionally done signs mounted on new, clean sticks.

Shame they didn't spell check them all though

Britain's future - god help us

These folk should be at their local college not at Uni

I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.

If they are paying more income tax then they are not educated.

Retro Formula 1

14th December 2010, 14:22

:up:

That's my whole point about "society". All taxpayers fund universities, whether they attend or not, on the basis that it benefits the country as a whole.

What is this "Society" you go on about? I know what my society is but didn't realise there was some utopian society that benefits me at an ethereal level, only accessed through University?

It's worrying that you consider it necessary to attend University in order to benefit society. If you do a degree in Marketing, the arts or politics, are you really contributing more to society than someone servicing my car, cleaning my street or fixing my boiler.

Do you know that University comes from a definition of "The Whole" yet it seems that the only thing the academic elite want from the original meeing is for "The Whole", i.e. US, to pay for their privilidge.

Politicians argued that fiddeling their claims at the taxpayers expense was justified to ensure the best people (them) could afford to benefit your society. Hmmmm, how many of them came from a non-academic background? I think I'm starting to understand what benefit this University Education offers ;)

ArrowsFA1

14th December 2010, 14:26

If it highlighted the nonsensical degrees being dished out then it was justified yes.
My question wasn't whether the headline was justified or not. My question was "do you believe that the Telegraph's headline accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree.

I take it from your response that you think it is acceptable for "an honest newspaper" to print a misleading and inaccurate headline.

Dave B

14th December 2010, 14:41

After leaving Uni, IF you earn over a particular amount, you will be expected to pay back a proportion of what your University Education costs. Not more than you can afford and after a set time, any outstanding balance is WRITTEN OFF.
Which has always happened, through general taxation. Now students are being asked to pay back their tuition fees on top of the income tax, NI, and VAT they already pay.

It is not a God given right to a University education ....
You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.

...and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.
Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.

Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.
You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls! What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 14:48

ArrowsFA1

14th December 2010, 15:13

How is it inaccurate if Beckham's latest hair cut, pumps, tattoo etc was part of the degree.
Well, when you've found a degree at Staffordshire University that studies those aspects (search here (http://crussearch1.staffs.ac.uk/search/search.cgi?meta_s_orsand=Media&meta_z_and=all&meta_x_and=All&collection=courses&x=21&y=12)) then we can say it was accurate.

Until then it's simply the Telegraph focusing in on what the "liberal" Unis are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the caviar munching bond traders into a hissy fit about it all then job done.

:p :

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 15:56

So do you think no aspect of the course focussed on Beckham?

Hardly essential learning is it? 1 year OND course would easily suffice.

Retro Formula 1

14th December 2010, 16:07

Which has always happened, through general taxation. Now students are being asked to pay back their tuition fees on top of the income tax, NI, and VAT they already pay.

Politicians have always fiddled expenses from the tax payer. The rich have always squirrelled money offshore. Is it right? Of course not and should be stopped.

Students are asking for a benefit and expecting everyone else in society to pay for it. That is just not right.

There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?

You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.

Agree. We need an well educated population that is fair, equitable and sustainable. We also need a responsible society that doesn't just take but that contributes fairly if it receives an educational and economic benefit.

Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.

And if you receive a benefit that allows you to have a much greater earning potential, it's only fair to pay back a small proportion so others can do the same and not empty the pot for future generations.

You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls!

Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?

What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.

I am only asking them to pay once if they earn a sufficient amount that allows them to contribute. Those that receive a good further education but are not able to contribute will be paid for by everyone, including those that don't receive this benefit.

I really cannot understand why this is so objectional. I believe in paying my way and contributing towards a society that benefit all including those that cannot support themselves (who, incidentially, I also expect to do their bit).

Shouldn't that be what we should all do?

schmenke

14th December 2010, 16:12

...Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.

I don't understand this statement.
How do you consider those who wish to enroll in higher education "elite of our society"? Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.
Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.

Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education. I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).

Dave B

14th December 2010, 16:23

Politicians have always fiddled expenses from the tax payer. The rich have always squirrelled money offshore. Is it right? Of course not and should be stopped.

Students are asking for a benefit and expecting everyone else in society to pay for it. That is just not right.
I can't see how you equate the fraudulent and (in some cases) criminal fiddling of expenses with what students are asking for :s

In any case, students aren't asking for "everyone else" to pay for their education. They're expecting to be taxpayers themselves one day, hopefully high earners. They aspire to making a contribution to the pot.

There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?
They will contribute towards it, though, through the taxes they themselves will pay. This is fundamental: you don't always pay for services at the time you use them, otherwise retired people wouldn't have access to the NHS for example. Every taxpayer contributes to a pot which benefits the whole, even if they themselves don't necessarily use each and every service which they fund.

Our local council has just part-funded a skate park which I'll never use. However, I see the benefit of kids having access to leisure facilities.

Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?

When you use phrases like "elite of our society" and "privilidged [sic] education" you do rather conjure up images of a class divide, so I don't think I'm being unfair.

GridGirl

14th December 2010, 16:25

How is it inaccurate if Beckham's latest hair cut, pumps, tattoo etc was part of the degree.

I'll agree that all papers sensationalise to some extent or another, The Guardian do it all the time, focus in on what the nasty Tories are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the lentil munching yoghurt knitters into a hissy fit about it all then job done.

Seriously, why are you so bothered about David Beckham featuring in a degree course at a not so reputable university. I have good degree from a red brick university and I still consider it to be 98% worthless after taking profesisonal exams. Hell, if I'd taken a job in a different profession it would be 100% useless regardless and I still didn't have the benefit of swooning over David Beckham.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 17:00

Shame they didn't spell check them all though

My word, you really are amazing, aren't you? Your command of English is dreadful, yet you feel able to make statements like that...

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 17:00

If they are paying more income tax then they are not educated.

Pray tell us why?

Retro Formula 1

14th December 2010, 17:09

I don't understand this statement.
How do you consider those who wish to enroll in higher education "elite of our society"?

Elite from an educational point of view. It's also true that elite reflects social standing, earning potential and career. More people from the "elite" have degrees than those in working class positions.

I thought this was a given otherwise why would people strive to go to Uni? Honestly, I can accept people having different views but do we have to go so "Janet and John"?

Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.

100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?

Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.

People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.

Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education.

Society as a whole benefit from everyone that contributes. Doctors and street sweepers or are you saying just because you don't have a degree means you contribute less to society?

I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).

We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 17:17

Seriously, why are you so bothered about David Beckham featuring in a degree course at a not so reputable university. I have good degree from a red brick university and I still consider it to be 98% worthless after taking profesisonal exams. Hell, if I'd taken a job in a different profession it would be 100% useless regardless and I still didn't have the benefit of swooning over David Beckham.

Just one of many worthless degrees that kids that would have been considered too thick to attend Uni a few years ago are now wasting their time and my money studying.

Did Hitchcock do a Media Studies degree at his local Poly, or Ford Coppola?

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 17:19

100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?

I don't understand the extent to which it doesn't happen now. From the view that you and indeed the Government are putting forward about universities having 'failed' people up to now, you'd think that everyone in higher education was exclusively from the upper classes, as was the case a century or so ago. It's a complete fallacy.

As I have stated before in this thread, it seems as though the Government is trying to even out all the inequalities in education when people reach 18, rather than improving education prior to that to a standard at which such measures aren't required. Universities are not primarily about 'social mobility', but about education and learning. Or is this an old-fashioned view?

People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.

Where on earth does this notion that a university education conveys upon a person 'privilege' and 'trappings' stem from? Again, maybe it did 100 years ago, but no more. This hasn't been the case for literally generations.

We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.

The system will never be viable unless fewer people go into it.

GridGirl

14th December 2010, 17:37

Just one of many worthless degrees that kids that would have been considered too thick to attend Uni a few years ago are now wasting their time and my money studying.

Did Hitchcock do a Media Studies degree at his local Poly, or Ford Coppola?

I still don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I attended a good university, got a good degree classification as a result and later good job but I still consider 98% of my degree to be a waste of time after taking professional exams. In effect there is no difference between my degree and your so called worthless degrees.

In theory shouldn't the increase in student fee's reduce the number of so called 'worthless degrees' that university's are going to offer anyway? £27,000's worth of fees is definately going to make any potential university applicant think longer and harder about what courses they are going to apply for. If universities are struggling for cash, the first thing they should look at is the student uptake of courses and how much they cost to run. If a course really isn't viable they should remove it.

Bolton Midnight

14th December 2010, 17:47

I still don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I attended a good university, got a good degree classification as a result and later good job but I still consider 98% of my degree to be a waste of time after taking professional exams. In effect there is no difference between my degree and your so called worthless degrees.

In theory shouldn't the increase in student fee's reduce the number of so called 'worthless degrees' that university's are going to offer anyway? £27,000's worth of fees is definately going to make any potential university applicant think longer and harder about what courses they are going to apply for. If universities are struggling for cash, the first thing they should look at is the student uptake of courses and how much they cost to run. If a course really isn't viable they should remove it.

Not to worry, at least it gave you the opportunity to mention your degree again.

Sorry state if you view accountancy from a decent red brick uni as on a par with Peace Studies from the local Poly, and could you do the job you do now with Peace Studies?

But if the degree and/or student are that useless then they won't have to pay a penny back, so those that are just going for a doss will plump for such courses.

But if it dispenses with these pointless degrees then all the better, just makes the Coalition's ideas even better.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 17:51

I still don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I attended a good university, got a good degree classification as a result and later good job but I still consider 98% of my degree to be a waste of time after taking professional exams.

The same could be said of much that one studies at school. I, for example, consider it a complete waste of time for most people, unless they choose to, to have to carry on doing maths once they know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, work out fractions/percentages and the other basics. GCSE maths was, for me, a pointless exercise. We would, in my opinion, be much better off with a more flexible educational system as a whole, ensuring that people really know the essentials but don't have to spend time on those subjects they are never going to use again. Off topic, I know, but not unrelated.

In theory shouldn't the increase in student fee's reduce the number of so called 'worthless degrees' that university's are going to offer anyway? £27,000's worth of fees is definately going to make any potential university applicant think longer and harder about what courses they are going to apply for. If universities are struggling for cash, the first thing they should look at is the student uptake of courses and how much they cost to run. If a course really isn't viable they should remove it.

Therein lies the paradox. These courses already wouldn't exist unless they were viable, and by that I mean well-subscribed and popular. It's the more traditional subjects that are being squeezed. The contradiction here is that this is nothing less than a free market, yet here again we see some of those on the right who believe in a free market suggesting that such courses shouldn't be allowed to exist.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 17:53

But if it dispenses with these pointless degrees then all the better, just makes the Coalition's ideas even better.

But it won't, because, as I said in my post above, these courses would be cancelled if take-up wasn't sufficient. The fact they exist and the fact they attract students is down to the sort of free market principles that you presumably support to the hilt.

schmenke

14th December 2010, 18:11

Elite from an educational point of view. It's also true that elite reflects social standing, earning potential and career. More people from the "elite" have degrees than those in working class positions.
...

I’m still not grasping this concept. To suggest the association of university education to social class is absurd. Perhaps “elite” is a poor choice of words?

...
I thought this was a given otherwise why would people strive to go to Uni? Honestly, I can accept people having different views but do we have to go so "Janet and John"?...

Nope, still not grasping what you’re trying to say. People go to university to pursue a chosen profession, a by-product of which may be a higher income bracket.
What’s “Janet and John”? :confused:

...
100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?...

As far as I know enrollment always has, and still is, based on academic qualifications.

...
People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.
....

Politicians and policy-makers are voted into office by all eligible voters, regardless of class. “People with working class jobs” are not paying for the “elite”, they are paying for the benefits of a society that makes readily available the services that higher education provides.

...
Society as a whole benefit from everyone that contributes. Doctors and street sweepers or are you saying just because you don't have a degree means you contribute less to society?...

Society benefits from all services. As has been mentioned in this thread, a balance of professions is required to sustain a viable society.

...
We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.

And as has been said numerous times, those with a university degree do pay; from being in a higher tax bracket, not to mention the personal “cost” of years of study to obtain the degree.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 18:28

I’m still not grasping this concept. To suggest the association of university education to social class is absurd. Perhaps “elite” is a poor choice of words?

There have traditionally been problems in the UK in terms of those from what might loosely be termed working-class backgrounds getting into university. Largely, this has to do with the poor standard of education they get prior to the age of 18 leading to them not getting grades sufficient for university entrance, and that is where inequalities need to be addressed. Universities in Britain have made massive progress since the days when they were reserved for the offspring of the middle and upper classes.

Society benefits from all services. As has been mentioned in this thread, a balance of professions is required to sustain a viable society.

Quite right.

Daniel

14th December 2010, 18:31

There have traditionally been problems in the UK in terms of those from what might loosely be termed working-class backgrounds getting into university. Largely, this has to do with the poor standard of education they get prior to the age of 18 leading to them not getting grades sufficient for university entrance, and that is where inequalities need to be addressed. Universities in Britain have made massive progress since the days when they were reserved for the offspring of the middle and upper classes.
Sometimes it's also a crutch for those less intelligent people who simply aren't destined for university as well as being as you say, a throwback to the days when education at a university was actually reserved for those of the higher classes.

Rollo

14th December 2010, 19:17

Society as a whole benefit from everyone that contributes. Doctors and street sweepers or are you saying just because you don't have a degree means you contribute less to society?

Before 1992 there were such things as Polytechnics which which issued certificates for a lot of practical trades. The then Major Government brought them under the auspices of the university system.
Society does need tradies as much as it needs doctors. Plumbers, gasfitters, carpenters, electricians all contribute to society. By the same token, those people need to be qualified enough to do their job and ensure that they don't accidentally kill themselves or other people.

ioan

14th December 2010, 19:29

GridGirl

14th December 2010, 19:34

Not to worry, at least it gave you the opportunity to mention your degree again.

Sorry state if you view accountancy from a decent red brick uni as on a par with Peace Studies from the local Poly, and could you do the job you do now with Peace Studies?

But if the degree and/or student are that useless then they won't have to pay a penny back, so those that are just going for a doss will plump for such courses.

But if it dispenses with these pointless degrees then all the better, just makes the Coalition's ideas even better.

Maybe your jealous because you don't have a degree. :p Incidently, I could do my job now if I had a degree in Peace Studies. No employer I have ever worked for has openly discriminated on degree course but they have discriminated on degree classification. Does it happen? I don't know, I've not been the one making decisions on whom to employ.

Why are you just focusing on the people you consider to be thick and those who you consider just to be going for a doss. There are going to be people who do not pay their fees back regardless of what degree course they do and where they do it. Some women for example may choose to have a family. They may be in the position when taking account of their partners income that they do not have to go out to work or they may just work part time and will not therefore pay any fees back due to them not earning £21k per annum.

I don't think I should open up the can of worm's that relates to student loans. I have actually paid off my student loan but if I didn't earn £15k per annum I wouldnt need to pay it back. If I hadn't paid it off by state retirement age it would get written off anyway. You can get a student moan regardless of degree course or university you go. It doesn't even matter of you don't complete the course either..... Ponder that for a while. Oh it will make your blood boil. :p

ioan

14th December 2010, 19:36

Every child in this country is entitled to a level of education. That level allows them to complete GCSE's, A-Levels and vocational courses.

Why stop there?!
The only answer to this question is because you stopped there. Am I right?
If everyone though like you than the world would be populated only by people with medium and low qualification that can hardly do more than sustain the present level of development. Also what would be the level of development without the researchers who helped the society evolve so far?

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 19:36

GridGirl

14th December 2010, 19:37

Not to worry, at least it gave you the opportunity to mention your degree again.

Sorry state if you view accountancy from a decent red brick uni as on a par with Peace Studies from the local Poly, and could you do the job you do now with Peace Studies?

But if the degree and/or student are that useless then they won't have to pay a penny back, so those that are just going for a doss will plump for such courses.

But if it dispenses with these pointless degrees then all the better, just makes the Coalition's ideas even better.

Maybe your jealous because you don't have a degree. :p Incidently, I could do my job now if I had a degree in Peace Studies. No employer I have ever worked for has openly discriminated on degree course but they have discriminated on degree classification. Does it happen? I don't know, I've not been the one making decisions on whom to employ.

Why are you just focusing on the people you consider to be thick and those who you consider just to be going for a doss. There are going to be people who do not pay their fees back regardless of what degree course they do and where they do it. Some women for example may choose to have a family. They may be in the position taking account of their partners income that they do not have to go out to work or they may just work part time and will not therefore pay any fees back due to them not earning £21k per annum.

I don't think I should open up the can of worm's that relates to student loans. I have actually paid off my student loan but if I didn't earn £15k per annum I wouldnt need to pay it back. If I hadn't paid it off by state retirement age it would get written off anyway. You can get a student loan regardless of degree course or university you go or your personal financial circumstances. It doesn't even matter of you don't complete the course either..... Ponder that for a while. Oh it will make your blood boil. :p

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 19:40

Maybe your jealous because you don't have a degree.

This, I feel, is at the root of many of the comments we're reading here in favour of the Government's stance. Most, I would hazard a guess (as I see ioan has done in his most recent post), didn't go to university. They may not think or admit any jealousy, but one can sense a degree of it — the same sort of people who say, so tiresomely, things like 'the only university you need to go to is the university of life'. In reality, that's the one you go to if you're not bright enough. That or the University of Luton, which accepts some appalling percentage of its students through the clearing system.

ioan

14th December 2010, 19:41

Where on earth does this notion that a university education conveys upon a person 'privilege' and 'trappings' stem from?

Most probably from an inferiority complex, which is sometimes part of the human nature and we have to accept its manifestation.

schmenke

14th December 2010, 20:40

This, I feel, is at the root of many of the comments we're reading here in favour of the Government's stance. Most, I would hazard a guess (as I see ioan has done in his most recent post), didn't go to university. They may not think or admit any jealousy, but one can sense a degree of it — the same sort of people who say, so tiresomely, things like 'the only university you need to go to is the university of life'. In reality, that's the one you go to if you're not bright enough. ...

On the flip side, let's not associate "intelligence" with a university education. There are many intelligent people who have no post-secondary education. A university degree qualifies a person to only apply a specific learning to a specific area of expertise. This does no make them generally “intelligent”.

MrMetro

14th December 2010, 20:42

ioan

14th December 2010, 20:49

On the flip side, let's not associate "intelligence" with a university education. There are many intelligent people who have no post-secondary education. A university degree qualifies a person to only apply a specific learning to a specific area of expertise. This does no make them generally “intelligent”.

Maybe that is what the degree does, however studying at the university will do so much more to improve the way you see the world, how you think and how you work. IMO it increases your intellectual abilities, not only your knowledge level.

Hondo

14th December 2010, 20:59

Yes, I have a degree from UofH, Cougar High, to some. It took almost 7 years to earn because I could not be a full time student and UofH was not the only university attended. I used no student loans but did benefit from various employer's programs that would reimburse a previously approved employee for tuition and books once the courses were completed with passing grades. You had to enrol in the program first. You couldn't just show up at the window waving transcripts around, demanding money. My parents had saved the money and wanted to put me through the higher education process but the siren call of independence and freedom had become overwhelming and I was itching for the opportunity to find my own way, which also included finding my own way to pay for higher education. You have asked this question before, Ben.

Ioan, I don't dislike students I just know the difference between book smart and 20 years of supporting yourself and a family smart. Most all of the idealism and social philosophies I considered possible up to around age 21 has long since been replaced with reality. That reality is the product of human nature, which does not change and will not change as long as humans have free will. The movie "A Clockwork Orange" is an interesting exploration of the concept of modifying free will. The problem was that they should have treated the victims as well as the criminal perpetrator.

As an aside, when I was in my 30's my Dad took a job transfer to California. One night Mom and Dad called babbling about finding their "dream house" and launched into describing the place, at 1:00 am. At the first break I asked them why was this necessary at 1:00 am? Because even with the money from the sale of the house in Houston the new house would be more than they wanted to finance so they called to ask about using "my" college money that they had saved all these years on their new house. It felt good to tell them that as far as I was concerned it was and always had been their money and they could do whatever they wanted with it. They got their dream house.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 21:02

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 21:05

Most all of the idealism and social philosophies I considered possible up to around age 21 has long since been replaced with reality.

I don't see this in my friends from university and I at all. The notion that all students are hopeless idealists simply isn't true. I'm sure the protests we've seen have much genuine anger and discontentment at Government policies behind them. To tar all students with the same brush as you did in your previous comments is unfair and inaccurate.

Hondo

14th December 2010, 22:33

I don't see this in my friends from university and I at all. The notion that all students are hopeless idealists simply isn't true. I'm sure the protests we've seen have much genuine anger and discontentment at Government policies behind them. To tar all students with the same brush as you did in your previous comments is unfair and inaccurate.

I have no doubt that the different societies in which we were raised plays a major role in our outlooks.

My point, and I stand by it, is that students, full of youth and zeal but devoid of experience, are easier to provoke to protest and riot. Student protests are nothing new and exist throughout history for as long as there have been students. Protest is always easier when somebody else is paying for your food, clothing, and housing. I am unaware of any student who, in the course of their protest, felt they could enhance their cause by damaging their parents home or car.

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 22:47

I have no doubt that the different societies in which we were raised plays a major role in our outlooks.

I'm sure that's very true.

My point, and I stand by it, is that students, full of youth and zeal but devoid of experience, are easier to provoke to protest and riot. Student protests are nothing new and exist throughout history for as long as there have been students. Protest is always easier when somebody else is paying for your food, clothing, and housing. I am unaware of any student who, in the course of their protest, felt they could enhance their cause by damaging their parents home or car.

Many students do pay for their own food, clothing and housing. I was fortunate in that my parents were able to contribute towards my housing while I was at university; however, I bought all my own food and clothes during that time, and I'm struggling to think of anyone who was any different in the latter regard. And quite a lot of students do take holiday, evening or weekend jobs to help them pay their way.

driveace

14th December 2010, 22:48

driveace

14th December 2010, 22:49

BDunnell

14th December 2010, 22:51

Well ,well ,well ioan..
On the second line of your statement ,is it THOUGH ,OR thought?
When you are on educational threads ,please get your spelling correct,even if it is not your 1st language!!!!!!!
Too ready to correct others!!
Is that noted BDunnell

I made my point earlier about ioan's standard of English. Nice of you to think of me, though.

Drew

14th December 2010, 23:06

Rollo

14th December 2010, 23:12

Protest is always easier when somebody else is paying for your food, clothing, and housing. I am unaware of any student who, in the course of their protest, felt they could enhance their cause by damaging their parents home or car.

Where were the targets of student riots?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822
Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party headquarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.
- BBC News, 10 Nov 2010

Who was paying for politicians food, clothing, and second :rolleyes: housing? It wouldn't happen to be the taxpayer would it? Or are you somehow suggesting that Government is no longer accountable to the will of the people? Especially since it has expressly broken promises its made.

The NUS is threatening to try to unseat Liberal Democrat MPs who go back on pre-election pledges they made to oppose any rise in tuition fees.
- BBC News, 10 Nov 2010

So it's perfectly acceptable for governments to bail out banks and pay for the messes caused by the private and public sector, but to keep an election pledge isn't?
Your very country was started over a taxation dispute and because voices weren't being heard by government. How different is this in principle?

schmenke

14th December 2010, 23:13

...Many students do pay for their own food, clothing and housing. I was fortunate in that my parents were able to contribute towards my housing while I was at university; however, I bought all my own food and clothes during that time, and I'm struggling to think of anyone who was any different in the latter regard. And quite a lot of students do take holiday, evening or weekend jobs to help them pay their way.

I lived at home during my years at university which obvioulsy was a huge savings on the expense, but I did work weekends and during the summers, at times 7 days/week, washing dishes and mopping floors to pay my tuition, books and other associated fees.

ShiftingGears

15th December 2010, 00:51

Shame they didn't spell check them all though

But that's okay, because critisising them on spelling would be clutching at straws, as some would argue...

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 10:51

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 10:59

Saying that, I completely disagree with you that a degree from what was the old Polytechnic system are in any way less valid than one from the the tradditional Uni's.

Certainly no less valid, but I think the demarcation between polys and universities was a useful one. Turning all the polys into universities has only served to further devalue the latter term, in my view.

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 11:02

Before 1992 there were such things as Polytechnics which which issued certificates for a lot of practical trades. The then Major Government brought them under the auspices of the university system.
Society does need tradies as much as it needs doctors. Plumbers, gasfitters, carpenters, electricians all contribute to society. By the same token, those people need to be qualified enough to do their job and ensure that they don't accidentally kill themselves or other people.

There has been this drive towards pushing people towards degrees rather than vocational courses which has lead to a shortage of trades people and Plumbers earning over £50k per year. Thank god for immigration redressing the balance :laugh:

Seriously though, the Technical Colleges still do a fantastic job but I believe a gradual realignment of the system is required with vocational training being viewed as being as desirable as a Degree.

There is this view that if you're not good enough to go to Uni, then you get a trade at college instead.

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 11:18

Why stop there?!
The only answer to this question is because you stopped there. Am I right?
If everyone though like you than the world would be populated only by people with medium and low qualification that can hardly do more than sustain the present level of development. Also what would be the level of development without the researchers who helped the society evolve so far?

I come on this forum to discuss views and understand other peoples opinions. Not to give out personal information about muself on an open site. Not trying to be rude but I prefer to not give out too much personal information but on this occassion, I will confirm I went to Uni as a mature student and paid for my course. I think that qualifies me to have an opinion on this matter and am not anti-University. In fact, I am pro-Uni and want to see the crap cut out of the current system and to have the best academic competence we can possibly have in this country.

Like it or not, my Country is in a hell of a financial mess. There has been too many people dipping the pockets of the tax payer. It now has to stop.

We either have a system where the people getting a financial benefit through the University system help pay for the continued excellence they experienced or we dilute that system by letting it continue as it is doing.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 13:18

Sometimes it's also a crutch for those less intelligent people who simply aren't destined for university as well as being as you say, a throwback to the days when education at a university was actually reserved for those of the higher classes.

But thanks to His Toniness being a bit dim is no longer a reason for not going to Uni as he decided that all and sundry should attend as it took them off the unemployment figures so made it look like Nu Labour were doing well.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 13:24

Maybe your jealous because you don't have a degree. :p Incidently, I could do my job now if I had a degree in Peace Studies. No employer I have ever worked for has openly discriminated on degree course but they have discriminated on degree classification. Does it happen? I don't know, I've not been the one making decisions on whom to employ.

Why are you just focusing on the people you consider to be thick and those who you consider just to be going for a doss. There are going to be people who do not pay their fees back regardless of what degree course they do and where they do it. Some women for example may choose to have a family. They may be in the position when taking account of their partners income that they do not have to go out to work or they may just work part time and will not therefore pay any fees back due to them not earning £21k per annum.

I don't think I should open up the can of worm's that relates to student loans. I have actually paid off my student loan but if I didn't earn £15k per annum I wouldnt need to pay it back. If I hadn't paid it off by state retirement age it would get written off anyway. You can get a student moan regardless of degree course or university you go. It doesn't even matter of you don't complete the course either..... Ponder that for a while. Oh it will make your blood boil. :p

But I do have a degree as I've already stated and one that is needed to do the job I do, we don't have any tom dick or harriet doing my job.

If you attend Uni and don't reach those earning limits then it is fair to say it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 13:29

I agree that there are some courses that are best described as "drinking" degrees but I would hope that most people go to University to advance themselves.

Saying that, I completely disagree with you that a degree from what was the old Polytechnic system are in any way less valid than one from the the tradditional Uni's.

Keeps them off the dole and sounds good.

No harm doing a course at Poly if that is what you want to do, but a lot of courses could be done in 1 year at College rather than 3 at Uni.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 13:33

but to keep an election pledge isn't?

Lib Dems came 3rd so they aren't elected so don't have to keep their pie in the sky promises (as they well knew - if they thought they stood a cat in hells chance of being elected they wouldn't have made such wild promises in their manifesto).

Like it or not, my Country is in a hell of a financial mess. There has been too many people dipping the pockets of the tax payer. It now has to stop.

Agreed

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 13:48

But I do have a degree as I've already stated and one that is needed to do the job I do, we don't have any tom dick or harriet doing my job.

Some might say that one of the options you mention is doing your job.

Bezza

15th December 2010, 14:00

But I do have a degree as I've already stated and one that is needed to do the job I do, we don't have any tom dick or harriet doing my job.

If you attend Uni and don't reach those earning limits then it is fair to say it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money.

I do agree with a lot of what you have said, Bolton Midnight however must pull you up on something you said a few pages ago regarding certain degrees. You classed psychology as a "lesser" degree in different words - I would disagree, as I have a degree in psychology and am currently working in sales. You may wonder how that relates to my current job - you would be surprised. And there are a lot of other degrees which lead on to good careers not necessarily in the same path as you would originally think.

Saying that, I do agree regarding Labour. Mr Blair and Labour fiddled the figures so that there were less "unemployed", keeping people in school and higher education. Clever tactics but not for the good of the country as a whole, along with other more blatant vote-winning policies on various certain subjects between 97 and 07.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 14:20

Dave B

15th December 2010, 14:32

But thanks to His Toniness being a bit dim is no longer a reason for not going to Uni as he decided that all and sundry should attend as it took them off the unemployment figures so made it look like Nu Labour were doing well.
Ironic that you post that on the day it was announced that unemployment (under the coalition) has risen by 35,000 to its highest level in six months, with youth unemployment in particular at near-record levels

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/15/unemployment-rises-unexpectedly
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8203220/Unemployment-increases-by-35000-to-pass-2.5-million.html

schmenke

15th December 2010, 14:43

...We either have a system where the people getting a financial benefit through the University system help pay for the continued excellence they experienced or we dilute that system by letting it continue as it is doing.

Skc, you seem to imply that the primary purpose of a university education is to earn a higher income, which is a seriously misinformed assumption. I don’t know of any of my graduate friends who attended university for this purpose. Most enrol to better themselves academically and to pursue a chosen profession. A higher income may be a by-product of a university degree.
Around here, I know that there are occupations such as tradesmen that are currently earning a higher annual gross salary than me :s

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 14:46

ArrowsFA1

15th December 2010, 15:13

Ironic that you post that on the day it was announced that unemployment (under the coalition) has risen by 35,000 to its highest level in six months, with youth unemployment in particular at near-record levels[/URL]
However, I was particularly pleased to see that the private sector stepped up to the plate as promised, and provided the jobs that the economy, and those made redundant, so badly need.

Oh no, wait. That didn't happen. Politicians breaking a promise. Whatever next.

Dave B

15th December 2010, 15:21

However, I was particularly pleased to see that the private sector stepped up to the plate as promised, and provided the jobs that the economy, and those made redundant, so badly need.

Oh no, wait. That didn't happen. Politicians breaking a promise. Whatever next.
Add to this that the uncertainty many people have about their future seems to be depressing spending and halting still further the economic recovery.

We're all in this together... :\

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 15:41

Skc, you seem to imply that the primary purpose of a university education is to earn a higher income, which is a seriously misinformed assumption. I don’t know of any of my graduate friends who attended university for this purpose. Most enroll to better themselves academically and to pursue a chosen profession. A higher income may be a by-product of a university degree.
Around here, I know that there are occupations such as tradesmen that are currently earning a higher annual gross salary than me :s

Schmenke. You have made your mind up, regardless of what I have written, so it is perhaps understandable that you would write such nonsense.

I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage but I have stated that those benefiting from a degree education which results in a high wage should contribute a small amount of this privilege back into the system.

If you bother reading my posts, you will see that I agree people not earning a high wage should be exempt and those earning more should pay a proportion back with the rest being written off.

And to Mr BDunnell. I have a healthy respect for money and am not ashamed of it. Perhaps if people respect money more and appreciate we don't live in a society where we can have whatever we want without paying for it, then the country wouldn't be in the bloody mess it is.

Everyone bleats on about how the Government should do this and do that. It's just avarice and greed but after the self serving spending spree of the last Government, it has to stop. In their words, "There's nothing left".

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 15:45

Ironic that you post that on the day it was announced that unemployment (under the coalition) has risen by 35,000 to its highest level in six months, with youth unemployment in particular at near-record levels

and it'll get worse once the cuts really bite, the more public sector non jobs go the better - sack the lot of them

maybe the way they record it is more honest, could hardly be less honest than the way Liebour massaged the figures.

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 15:46

I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage but I have stated that those benefiting from a degree education which results in a high wage should contribute a small amount of this privilege back into the system.

Leaving universities aside, do you believe in increased taxation for the rich? If not, why is a tax on intelligence acceptable?

And to Mr BDunnell. I have a healthy respect for money and am not ashamed of it. Perhaps if people respect money more and appreciate we don't live in a society where we can have whatever we want without paying for it, then the country wouldn't be in the bloody mess it is.

That is rather different to what I'm getting at. I agree with what you say there. What I am decidedly unenthusiastic about is the attitude that money is everything.

Tazio

15th December 2010, 15:59

This pales in comparison to the riot that broke out in cyber-space on motorsports.com headquartered in the UK when a mentally deranged asylum resident went missing for a brief period today :s ailor: :s mokin:

Dave B

15th December 2010, 16:01

and it'll get worse once the cuts really bite, the more public sector non jobs go the better - sack the lot of them
And replace them with....?

Personally I'd still like my bins emptied, my local hospital to be efficient and well-managed, to be safe from crime, for kids to be educated and protected, the roads maintained.... I could go on.

Who's going to do all this and more once you "sack the lot of them"? The private sector - for a profit?

How do you fund the massive amount of unemployment claims which would result? How do you replace the lost tax income? How do you make up the lost VAT income from these people now facing no disposable income?

Think it through, it's becoming impossible to have reasonable debate with you if you spew out this ill-conceived gibberish.

maybe the way they record it is more honest, could hardly be less honest than the way Liebour massaged the figures.
Nice try, but the methodolgy hasn't changed; and in any case the figures are compiled by the Office of National Statistics, not the government. But, as ever, don't let facts get in your way.

schmenke

15th December 2010, 16:08

Schmenke. You have made your mind up, regardless of what I have written, so it is perhaps understandable that you would write such nonsense.

I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage ...

:confused:

...
We either have a system where the people getting a financial benefit through the University system ....

Apologies, perhaps I misunderstood this statement, but it does seem to imply that the purpose of a universtiy system is to provide a financial benefit.
The purpose of the universtiy system is to provide an advanced education.

I have read your posts skc, and believe it or not, I agree with some of them, but I honestly fail to grasp your notion of a higher income being a "privilege" for which a repayment into the "system" is somehow is required :confused:

...
I have not implied that people go to University to earn a high wage but I have stated that those benefiting from a degree education which results in a high wage should contribute a small amount of this privilege back into the system.....

A high wage is not a privilege, but the result of any combination of education, hard work, perseverance, and at times good fortune. The "repayment" into the "system" is through a higher taxation scheme (as has been mentioned numerous times), not to mention the benefit of the service provided to the society, which can't necessarily be measured in financial terms.

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 16:13

Leaving universities aside, do you believe in increased taxation for the rich? If not, why is a tax on intelligence acceptable?

I do. Currently there is zero tax for those earning under £6.5k, a basic rate to about £40k and a super tax over £150k. There is also a reduction of £6.5k allowance over £100k.

That seems fair and I am glad the Labour tax on the poor was defeated.

But then again, I earn my money and pay my tax off my own back. I do not think I am entitled to free training in order to earn more and have paid in the past for the privilidge.

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 16:22

And replace them with....?

Personally I'd still like my bins emptied, my local hospital to be efficient and well-managed, to be safe from crime, for kids to be educated and protected, the roads maintained.... I could go on.

Who's going to do all this and more once you "sack the lot of them"? The private sector - for a profit?

How do you fund the massive amount of unemployment claims which would result? How do you replace the lost tax income? How do you make up the lost VAT income from these people now facing no disposable income?

Think it through, it's becoming impossible to have reasonable debate with you if you spew out this ill-conceived gibberish.

Nice try, but the methodolgy hasn't changed; and in any case the figures are compiled by the Office of National Statistics, not the government. But, as ever, don't let facts get in your way.

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.

Would you describe a policeman, nurse, bin man, teacher etc as a 'non job' as I wouldn't. But a diversity out reach manager or equality target manager etc as being worthless and they are just parasites like the dole wallers but worse as they leach more money from the taxpayers.

Public Sector doesn't pay tax though, it's just an adjustment in what we pay them, the private sector is the true wealth creator for the country not these parasites.

ONS bunch of ****wits, just professional liars. Am sure 50% of them lot could go without any drop off in service. The public sector has too many staff and a lot needs to go and it can be done without any of the essential frontline services being harmed.

My mate Eric Pickles is doing a grand job. Slash and burn - fills me with a warm glow to think of all these tossers facing the sack and not before time they never should have been hired in the first place.

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 16:26

I do. Currently there is zero tax for those earning under £6.5k, a basic rate to about £40k and a super tax over £150k. There is also a reduction of £6.5k allowance over £100k.

That seems fair and I am glad the Labour tax on the poor was defeated.

Fair enough, and apologies if I seemed to suggest you were being hypocritical on this point.

But then again, I earn my money and pay my tax off my own back. I do not think I am entitled to free training in order to earn more and have paid in the past for the privilidge.

I do not, however, equate a university education with training. As stated many times in this discussion, a clear demarcation between what is best studied at university and what is not would be of great benefit to the whole higher education system. Plus I feel that far more training should be offered free of charge by employers, whether in the public or private sectors, if employees desire it.

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 16:27

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.

With respect, your posts are either not of the intellectual depth that makes them liable to misreading, or so badly written in terms of being confusing and contradictory that they do pose a problem even to those with a high level of comprehension.

Dave B

15th December 2010, 16:41

It is hard to debate when you choose to not read posts correctly.
I've revisited your post and it is quite open to misinterpretation, especially considering your previously stated views on the public sector.

Would you describe a policeman, nurse, bin man, teacher etc as a 'non job' as I wouldn't. But a diversity out reach manager or equality target manager etc as being worthless and they are just parasites like the dole wallers but worse as they leach more money from the taxpayers.
I don't have sufficient knowledge of what "diversity out reach managers" or "equality target managers" do to make an informed opinion. Perhaps you could enlighten me why these particular two posts, for example, are unnecessary; and what steps you would instead put in place to ensure that public bodies have the maximum possible reach and, seperately, don't breach equality legislation.

ONS bunch of ****wits, just professional liars. Am sure 50% of them lot could go without any drop off in service.
Strange, they're independently audited and trusted by all the major political parties including the ones you support. I'd be interested in what basis you accuse them of lying, and what you know about their staffing levels to make you so sure they could operate with half the staff?

I assume you can answer these points and weren't just plucking figures and opinions out of the ether?

Retro Formula 1

15th December 2010, 17:06

I do not, however, equate a university education with training. As stated many times in this discussion, a clear demarcation between what is best studied at university and what is not would be of great benefit to the whole higher education system. Plus I feel that far more training should be offered free of charge by employers, whether in the public or private sectors, if employees desire it.

Now, that I agree with. Apprentiships are great for someone getting paid to learn a trade and the employer receives the benefit of their investment but additional vocational training benefits both parties as well.

ArrowsFA1

15th December 2010, 17:20

...the private sector is the true wealth creator for the country...
Spoken like a true devotee of the CPS (http://www.cps.org.uk/).

This belief that leaving the private sector free to do what it does best, unhindered by regulation and government involvement, and it will do so in the interests of the country is misguided. Yes, the private sector produces wealth, but it does so, above all else, for itself and investors.

Your contempt for the public sector, and for many of those in need of those services (which includes most of us at some time or another) is deplorable and simply reflects the fundamental reason why the Tory vote has been steadily declining, and why the country did not trust the latest incarnation of Conservatism to have a majority even when up against an unpopular Labour government.

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.

Dave B

15th December 2010, 17:24

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.
On that note, we didn't discuss the recent announcement that the Forensic Science Service is to be closed as it's losing money. So if you happen to know any rape victims, be sure to remind them that that expensive swab didn't make enough profit :s

Bolton Midnight

15th December 2010, 17:25

I've revisited your post and it is quite open to misinterpretation, especially considering your previously stated views on the public sector.

I don't have sufficient knowledge of what "diversity out reach managers" or "equality target managers" do to make an informed opinion. Perhaps you could enlighten me why these particular two posts, for example, are unnecessary; and what steps you would instead put in place to ensure that public bodies have the maximum possible reach and, seperately, don't breach equality legislation.

Strange, they're independently audited and trusted by all the major political parties including the ones you support. I'd be interested in what basis you accuse them of lying, and what you know about their staffing levels to make you so sure they could operate with half the staff?

I assume you can answer these points and weren't just plucking figures and opinions out of the ether?

No it isn't, if I say get rid of the non jobs then that clearly does not include essential staff does it?

Going to collect my daughter so haven't time now - but the job titles alone show they are not essential in the same way that the likes of copper, nurse, teacher are - you'd have to be a bit weird if you thought they were essential and besides the fact things seemed to manage fine in 97 shows that the 2½m extra jobs Labour created are not needed so can all go.

ONS have been criticised many times in the past for false figures. Feel free to google them. All of the public sector is over staffed, they have to be to cover for sickies and duvet days.

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 17:32

Spoken like a true devotee of the CPS (http://www.cps.org.uk/).

This belief that leaving the private sector free to do what it does best, unhindered by regulation and government involvement, and it will do so in the interests of the country is misguided. Yes, the private sector produces wealth, but it does so, above all else, for itself and investors.

Your contempt for the public sector, and for many of those in need of those services (which includes most of us at some time or another) is deplorable and simply reflects the fundamental reason why the Tory vote has been steadily declining, and why the country did not trust the latest incarnation of Conservatism to have a majority even when up against an unpopular Labour government.

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.

I agree completely with you. There is a certain, horrible, naivety about most politicians of all main parties, and their most enthusiastic acolytes, when they say things like 'I don't care who provides a public service so long as they do it well'. This assumes a degree of altruism on the part of private sector companies that are involved, because their primary concern is their financial bottom line. This much is perfectly understandable — as private sector companies, they would be failing in their duties to their shareholders were they to do anything other. However, this is not always compatible with the provision of the best service. One experiences this all the time, whether buying a product or a service from a company, or dealing with a private sector firm brought in to run a public service.

Dave B

15th December 2010, 17:34

gloomyDAY

15th December 2010, 17:37

Students should quit their whining and attend for-profit schools that are more than willing to provide substandard education at an inflated cost. Here's an example about how American soldiers have been getting enriched, erm, ripped-off once they get home and try to get a college education (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/for-profit-colleges-rake-in-millions-from-post-911-gi-bill.php). If students cannot afford tuition at a public university, then they should get duped into going to a for-profit college and fail out of school because there aren't any resources to help them succeed.

ArrowsFA1

15th December 2010, 17:40

...I feel that far more training should be offered free of charge by employers, whether in the public or private sectors, if employees desire it.
Employers, unless they are very large organisations, have to buy in training themselves but this is then often free to the employees. They pay private training providers or Colleges to provide off the shelf or bespoke training.

Government funds much of the training provided by employers, or at least that has been the case. While this government has publicised its commitment to apprenticeships, it is not so keen to have it known that employers themselves now have to pay far more than previously if they want to take on an apprentice.

So, with businesses struggling and demand for apprenticeships on the rise does anyone think employers are going to be happy to pay more? And if not, what happens to those students wanting to do an apprenticeship?

Malbec

15th December 2010, 18:24

No

The students don't have to pay anything until they have finished and are earning so whether their mummy and daddy earn £1m a month or £25k it makes no difference to what they will have to pay AFTER qualifying.

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

As I've said it is in fact a fairer system than the existing one and that is why anybody that has read and understood it is for it, the only ones against it are those who hear and believe the headlines.

Its not about when the payment is made, whether its upfront or paid later.

Do you really think that someone from a wealthy family who knows that mummy and daddy can and will help pay the loan off or will pay the deposit on the house they want to buy after uni will view the hike in fees the same way as someone from a poorer background whose parents won't be able to contribute in the same way? Poorer people will be put off, so we can give up this pretence of being a meritocracy right away.

You also ignored the fact that a hike in fees will pressure unis to drop the more expensive courses which are generally scientific in nature and concentrate on the humanities you so despise which are cheaper to run and therefore more profitable.

A different point which noone has raised is the potential impact of cutting the spending power of a segment of society that traditionally earns more (ie graduates) by hobbling them with ever higher loans, and how that will affect the economy as a whole? This could have a depressive effect on whole sectors of the economy such as housing/property and consumer spending. The overall impact of these changes hasn't been looked at in enough detail IMO, which is also my complaint about other cuts such as in defence which has cut Britain's foreign impact more than any other single move since the decision to extract herself from the Empire. That decision was made in merely a matter of months.

Rollo

15th December 2010, 19:21

A different point which noone has raised is the potential impact of cutting the spending power of a segment of society that traditionally earns more (ie graduates) by hobbling them with ever higher loans, and how that will affect the economy as a whole? This could have a depressive effect on whole sectors of the economy such as housing/property and consumer spending.

I don't know how it would necessarily affect aggregate consumer spending but in terms of the housing/property sector, it might have some quite interesting effects.

People who have higher loans would have a greater proportion of their income skimmed off the top leading to lower net disposable incomes which would make it harder to save for a house or keep them out of the property market entirely by keeping them in the rent trap. This would invariably lead to an increase in institutional investment in domestic dwellings, though property trusts.

Maybe that's what the legislators want though.

GridGirl

15th December 2010, 19:40

The posts above by Dylan and Rollo do pose some interesting questions. I don't believe that student loan debt is currently considered by lenders when applying for mortgages. After all, it's a case of you either pay it because you earn enough or you don't pay anything at all. If the new student fee loans are implemented in a similar way then surely lenders will have to pay more attention to the debt levels and the resulting net income after the fee loan and student loan are being repaid.

BDunnell

15th December 2010, 20:24

I think the rather sad assumption is made about consumer spending that people will just get into debt on their credit cards, just as they do now.

Retro Formula 1

16th December 2010, 09:43

On that note, we didn't discuss the recent announcement that the Forensic Science Service is to be closed as it's losing money. So if you happen to know any rape victims, be sure to remind them that that expensive swab didn't make enough profit :s

This may not help your cause much. The FSS have been losing money hand over fist and have also made some high profile mistakes.

The private forensic companies in this instance seem to be doing a better overall job at less cost.

Garry Walker

16th December 2010, 12:54

BDunnell

16th December 2010, 13:05

I have been very busy lately, so I haven`t had the time to follow news properly. What exactly is the government trying to change in UK regarding unis, so that the students rioted? Higher fees? Shouldn`t that be up to the unis to decide?

In a nutshell, the Government has removed the cap on tuition fees, thus allowing universities to charge students up to £9,000 per year, at the same time as announcing a drastic cut in teaching budgets. The leading universities will probably charge more than the lesser ones.

As for your last question, the university vice-chancellors are almost exclusively supportive of the measures, thereby being completely unrepresentative of the views of the majority of staff and students, whose interests I would have thought they are there to defend.

Garry Walker

16th December 2010, 13:21

In a nutshell, the Government has removed the cap on tuition fees, thus allowing universities to charge students up to £9,000 per year, at the same time as announcing a drastic cut in teaching budgets. The leading universities will probably charge more than the lesser ones.

As for your last question, the university vice-chancellors are almost exclusively supportive of the measures, thereby being completely unrepresentative of the views of the majority of staff and students, whose interests I would have thought they are there to defend.

Thanks.
As I dont know much about uni system in UK, I will put forward a few questions.
What are the average fees right now? I remember looking at fees years ago just out of curiosity for Cambridge or Oxford, I dont remember which it was, and remember it being somewhere around 3 000 pounds, but my memory could be failing me. So it seems the increase would be quite substantial, to say the least, right?

Do unis offer free of charge tuition for some students who have better grades from schools or who did better in entrance exams to unis?

ArrowsFA1

16th December 2010, 13:27

The private forensic companies in this instance seem to be doing a better overall job at less cost.
Are they? I have no means of knowing. We've already seen in healthcare that cost considerations can be put before the care of the individual when private companies are involved and my concern would be that the same happens when it comes to the tools needed to solve crime.

In my view there are certain things that should be provided in the interests of the public, not profit. The public pay their taxes for such things.

Retro Formula 1

16th December 2010, 13:57

Are they? I have no means of knowing. We've already seen in healthcare that cost considerations can be put before the care of the individual when private companies are involved and my concern would be that the same happens when it comes to the tools needed to solve crime.

In my view there are certain things that should be provided in the interests of the public, not profit. The public pay their taxes for such things.

I found this reply in the Independant and think it's pretty fair and informed. I cannot make any further comment on the FSS as I do not know too much about it but just because a service is transferred from the state, does not mean the people providing that service are any less professional or will do a worse job.

As a forensic scientist working for a rival private company, it is indeed a sad thing to witness an innovative and pioneering entity coming to a halt. For those who aren't aware, scientists at the FSS have been responsible for many of the most important and world-renowned advances in forensic science. It is fair to say (if a little pretentious) that we, following in their wake, are standing on the shoulders of giants.
However, the private companies currently operating in the market are staffed by experienced experts who learned their profession at the FSS and I would find it hard to accept that a majority (those perhaps not all) of those experts who are being made redundant in this move will not have the opportunity to find new positions with the companies who will be taking up the slack. Taking with them their skills (and generous redundancy packages :-o), they will have the responsibility for training and developing a new generation of scientists in this altered environment.
Forensic science provision will continue to be delivered by dedicated and competent scientists in England & Wales albeit practising in a commercially-minded market. If anybody doubts the expertise such 'capitalist' scientists offer, please read about Damilola Taylor, Rachel Nickell, and Vikki Thompson. The drive to a privatised market should produce future generations of scientists who are more rounded and professional in how they provide their expertise to the police, which is no bad thing. The reality is that much of the services that the police pay for are relatively mundane and repetitive (..and I should know!), and as such, the FSS has suffered in not being able to adapt to a market where competitors can process such work quicker and cheaper, with no appreciable drop in quality. Private companies must still adhere to strict codes of accreditation, and regularly undergo internal and external quality control procedures such as competency trials etc. just like the FSS had to.
And for those who are paranoid about scientists being pressured into delivering opinions which are swayed by our customers (i.e. the police) in this brave new world, it is to be remembered that it is the responsibility of each and every expert witness to sign their own name to a section 9 witness statement and as such, defend it in a court of law. Last time I checked, we had an adversarial justice system; any claims of bias will be dealt with by the ultimate arbiter, the court.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/forensic-science-service-to-be-wound-up-2160098.html

Retro Formula 1

16th December 2010, 14:18

Do unis offer free of charge tuition for some students who have better grades from schools or who did better in entrance exams to unis?

There are scholorships out there and it's important to note that after graduation, students will not have to pay back a penny until they earn £21k (currently £15k). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, contrary to what the scaremongers say, Uni's will not be able to raise the limit above £6k and even then, will have to contribute into a compolsary scholorship schene for poorer students.

Repayment will be reflective of what they earn over the next 30 years set at 9% over £21k with any outstanding balance after that being written off.

I think it works out that someone with an average graduate salary (£25k) will pay £180 per year. I'm not 100% sure but can someone confirm if this is off there gross wage so is non taxable, or off the net?

Malbec

16th December 2010, 15:20

Bezza

16th December 2010, 16:34

Another Lancastrian - place is full of us, good do. Glad you agree with most of what I'm saying, restores faith in this place that it isn't full of clueless lefties after all.

But would you have benefited more with say a Sales / Marketing HND course with your current job? That would have only been a 2 year course at Tuson.

No I went through a recruitment process who only took on university graduates at levels 2:2 or above. Bit elitist but it did the trick! I have changed jobs since my first one in 2006 and my current one actually wouldn't have needed a degree but in a roundabout way I wouldn't have this one without the first one if you get what I mean.

So in the end, it was valid and I also enjoyed it anyway (along with the non-studying parts of the course !)

Brown, Jon Brow

16th December 2010, 16:41

Another Lancastrian - place is full of us, good do.

I might live here but I'm not a Lancastrian. ;)

Daniel

16th December 2010, 17:20

Rollo

16th December 2010, 19:08

In my view there are certain things that should be provided in the interests of the public, not profit. The public pay their taxes for such things.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/nsw-reaps-53bn-from-electricity-sale/story-e6freuyi-1225971248092
The NSW Government will reap $5.3 billion from the the first tranche of the partial privatisation of the state's electricity assets, NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal has announced.
...
The larger of the retailers, EnergyAustralia, has been snapped up by Hong-Kong listed TRUenergy, which also bought the right to trade the output generated by Delta Electricity power stations west of Sydney, as well as three development sites including one at the Mt Piper Extension near Lithgow and two at Marulan.

When Victoria privatised their electricity infrastructure, retail prices for electricity more than tripled in the space of less than 6 months. The Pricing Regulator in NSW (IPART) announced on the 5am news this morning that it would allow "competitive pricing in live with private operators in the rest of the country" ie with Victoria.
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that my electric bills will triple after July 1 for precisely zero net benefit to me.

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 15:37

Spoken like a true devotee of the CPS (http://www.cps.org.uk/).

This belief that leaving the private sector free to do what it does best, unhindered by regulation and government involvement, and it will do so in the interests of the country is misguided. Yes, the private sector produces wealth, but it does so, above all else, for itself and investors.

Your contempt for the public sector, and for many of those in need of those services (which includes most of us at some time or another) is deplorable and simply reflects the fundamental reason why the Tory vote has been steadily declining, and why the country did not trust the latest incarnation of Conservatism to have a majority even when up against an unpopular Labour government.

The private sector has much to offer (even if it's not those promised jobs as yet) but the country needs a public sector to provide services where profit is not the primary motivation.

The Labour government and its love affair with the Public Sector / Unions has as near as dammit bankrupt the country.

If the Tories reduce DSS payments to scroungers and get rid of a few hundred thousand expensive non-jobs then that can only be a good thing for those that are paying taxes and trying to get the country back on its feet.

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 15:50

Underneath your hyperbole there may be some points worth debating, Bolton, but it's pretty much impossible when you take such a black and white position and use phrases like (and these are direct quotes but with my bolding):

"All of the public sector is over staffed"

"the 2½m extra jobs Labour created are not needed so can all go"

"it seems that Haringey Council would be best to sack everyone and start again"

"You could sack 2m public sector bods and nobody would notice; they are that useless".

And yet, when challenged, you fail to suggest any meaningful alternative but instead suggest that people have missed the point of your posts. I'd say the above quotes make your points pretty clear.

The public sector is over staffed; they have to be to cover for all the sickies these lazy malingerers think they are entitled to.

We managed fine in 97 so why not shed all those extra jobs, as they are clearly superfluous.

Haringey Council seem to demonstrate what is wrong with a lot of the public sector, they are incompetent.

If we managed without this extra 2m then they are not needed. Which bit of that do you not understand? If you owned 2 cars and managed fine then bought a 3rd then needed to save some money then wouldn't it seem logical to ditch the new and unneeded car?

Those of you who run your own businesses will know what you need to do when things get tight, you drop the things that you don't absolutely need - if you were in debt you'd not spend money on wasteful pieces of art or politically correct jobs - judging by the BBC staff you can't have a job there if you are not black or disabled. Reverse prejudice at its worse.

The cuts need to be large and permanent then maybe we can enjoy some tax cuts, as that will be the only way things will improve. You can not spend your way out of debt, but feel free to try it when you have maxed out your credit cards this Christmas.

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 15:52

In my view there are certain things that should be provided in the interests of the public, not profit. The public pay their taxes for such things.

As opposed to how it was under Labour you paid for the services but didn't get them, how is that better?

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 15:53

I might live here but I'm not a Lancastrian. ;)

Well we all have our cross to bear

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 15:56

There are scholorships out there and it's important to note that after graduation, students will not have to pay back a penny until they earn £21k (currently £15k). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, contrary to what the scaremongers say, Uni's will not be able to raise the limit above £6k and even then, will have to contribute into a compolsary scholorship schene for poorer students.

Repayment will be reflective of what they earn over the next 30 years set at 9% over £21k with any outstanding balance after that being written off.

I think it works out that someone with an average graduate salary (£25k) will pay £180 per year. I'm not 100% sure but can someone confirm if this is off there gross wage so is non taxable, or off the net?

Read somewhere that 70% of current loans go unpaid, total and utter failure if 70% of graduates don't reach 15k, the entire system needs putting back to how it used to be where only the elite go to Uni and not every thick kid who cba to get a job.

The repayments will be a drop in the ocean and certainly won't stop graduates buying houses, that is just scaremongering from the loony left.

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 16:01

No I went through a recruitment process who only took on university graduates at levels 2:2 or above. Bit elitist but it did the trick! I have changed jobs since my first one in 2006 and my current one actually wouldn't have needed a degree but in a roundabout way I wouldn't have this one without the first one if you get what I mean.

So in the end, it was valid and I also enjoyed it anyway (along with the non-studying parts of the course !)

Sounds like the recruitment process needs amending, I'd rather take someone with 2 years relevant HND background than someone with 3 years spent studying for an irrelevant degree.

Of course going to Uni is a laugh, but don't see why I should have to pay for some wasters to get their end away and get drunk every night (oh so poor students - NOT).

To fund my student debts I worked every holiday and then paid off what was left once I got a proper job using my qualifications.

Dave B

21st December 2010, 16:15

The public sector is over staffed; they have to be to cover for all the sickies these lazy malingerers think they are entitled to.

We managed fine in 97 so why not shed all those extra jobs, as they are clearly superfluous.

Haringey Council seem to demonstrate what is wrong with a lot of the public sector, they are incompetent.

If we managed without this extra 2m then they are not needed. Which bit of that do you not understand? If you owned 2 cars and managed fine then bought a 3rd then needed to save some money then wouldn't it seem logical to ditch the new and unneeded car?

Those of you who run your own businesses will know what you need to do when things get tight, you drop the things that you don't absolutely need - if you were in debt you'd not spend money on wasteful pieces of art or politically correct jobs - judging by the BBC staff you can't have a job there if you are not black or disabled. Reverse prejudice at its worse.

The cuts need to be large and permanent then maybe we can enjoy some tax cuts, as that will be the only way things will improve. You can not spend your way out of debt, but feel free to try it when you have maxed out your credit cards this Christmas.

Sickies - check
Lazy - check
Labour to blame - check
Wasteful art - check
Political correctness - check
Bash the BBC - check
Play the race card - check
Play the disability card - check

Are you sure you're not Richard Littlejohn? That was textbook. :dozey:

Bolton Midnight

21st December 2010, 16:57

Are you sure you're not Richard Littlejohn?

That namby pamby Liberal

But doesn't make it any less wrong - the silent majority know as much

But if you're not so sure just call me an idiot, seems the usual retort when stumped

Rollo

21st December 2010, 19:21

Haringey Council seem to demonstrate what is wrong with a lot of the public sector, they are incompetent.

Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester, Lloyd's Group...

Who's incompetence cost the public more? Think hard now.
Of course being a banker is a laugh, but don't see why I should have to pay for some wasters to get their end away and get drunk every night (oh so poor bankers - NOT).

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 08:12

The Labour government and its love affair with the Public Sector / Unions has as near as dammit bankrupt the country.
That's your explaination for the current global economic situation?

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 10:24

That's your explaination for the current global economic situation?
Pretty weak, isn't it? The global situation was triggered by the collapse and near-collapse of major banks, and the UK rode it out better than some countries. Clearly we could have done better: the idea that Brown failed to invest for a rainy day certainly has some truth, but one only has to look at Greece, Spain or the Irish Republic to see how much worse it could have been.

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 10:39

But doesn't make it any less wrong - the silent majority know as much

This "silent majority" are always pretty quiet, aren't they? In fact, they were even silent during this year's general election when the Conservatives couldn't even garner a majority when presented with a massive open goal - the economy struggling, and an unpopular PM.

But if you're not so sure just call me an idiot, seems the usual retort when stumped
I'm neither stumped nor reduced to the level of playground insults, but I appreciate the invitation.

Read somewhere that 70% of current loans go unpaid, total and utter failure if 70% of graduates don't reach 15k, the entire system needs putting back to how it used to be where only the elite go to Uni and not every thick kid who cba to get a job.

"Read somewhere"? Any chance of a source for this rumour? I've tried Googling but the only reports I can find seem to indicate the problem is with non-UK students defaulting, or problems with the collection process. This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/04/coins-database-government-bad-debts) report indicates £285M total unpaid debt (out of a loan book of £2.79 billion [2005/6, source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_Kingdom#Higher_Educati on_Act_2004)]) but doesn't break down the reasons.

My maths isn't great (I went to a crap university) but I don't make that 70%.

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 12:32

Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester, Lloyd's Group...

Who's incompetence cost the public more? Think hard now.
Of course being a banker is a laugh, but don't see why I should have to pay for some wasters to get their end away and get drunk every night (oh so poor bankers - NOT).

The bank bailout is chicken feed compared with what is wasted year after year on public sector non jobs, not to mention the huge ticking bomb which is their lovely pensions.

Labour allowed the banks to act like a Bet Fred I agree. But the public sector costs a lot more - not to mention the bank bail out will be paid back with interest/profit unlike the public sector non jobs who are just parasites, like dole wallers but more costly.

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 12:39

This "silent majority" are always pretty quiet, aren't they? In fact, they were even silent during this year's general election when the Conservatives couldn't even garner a majority when presented with a massive open goal - the economy struggling, and an unpopular PM.

"Read somewhere"? Any chance of a source for this rumour? I've tried Googling but the only reports I can find seem to indicate the problem is with non-UK students defaulting, or problems with the collection process. This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/04/coins-database-government-bad-debts) report indicates £285M total unpaid debt (out of a loan book of £2.79 billion [2005/6, source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_Kingdom#Higher_Educati on_Act_2004)]) but doesn't break down the reasons.

My maths isn't great (I went to a crap university) but I don't make that 70%.

Tories received more votes than either Labour, Lib Dem or all the other nut case parties like the Greens and BNP. Without Labour's crooked boundary changes they would have had a clear majority - sod all to do with Tories being unpopular they weren't they won.

I was trying to find the source of the 70% but couldn't hence why I just put 'read somewhere'. It's not that difficult to follow really it isn't. 2005/6 bit out of date isn't it, as the number at Uni has shot up since then I'd expect the number of unpaid loans to have also shot up - or is that a bit too logical for you to grasp?

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 12:45

I was trying to find the source of the 70% but couldn't hence why I just put 'read somewhere'. It's not that difficult to follow really it isn't. 2005/6 bit out of date isn't it, as the number at Uni has shot up since then I'd expect the number of unpaid loans to have also shot up - or is that a bit too logical for you to grasp?
They were the latest figures I could find at short notice - but as it wasn't me making the accusation I don't see why I should have had to do the research in the first place.

I fully accept that the figures are slightly out of date, but do you honestly believe they've rocketed up from <1% to ~70%?

You're very quick to offer an opinion but hopeless at backing anything up with evidence, and very quick to deflect when you're challenged by somebody else's research.

Let's rewind a few posts and ask you what percentage of the BBC's staff are black and/or disabled. Or is that just more uninformed bluster?

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 13:21

The bank bailout is chicken feed compared with what is wasted year after year on public sector non jobs, not to mention the huge ticking bomb which is their lovely pensions.

Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years, the public spending watchdog says today. (link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html))

To put that in some kind of context "at the end of March 2010 general government debt was £1000.4 bn" (link (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277))

According to Sir Phillip Green, who was brought in to review government spendng and see where waste could be eliminated:
no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed (link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11512287))

With regard to public sector pensions:
the Government Actuary’s Department projects total payments rising to over £79 billion a year by 2059-60 In 2008-9 the taxpayer’s share of costs were £14.9 billion. (link (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/public_service_pensions.aspx))

Those figures were easy to find. Harder to find is any figure on the amount of pulic sector waste. Eric Pickles has, rather like yourself, been very vocal and yet very short on detail. No doubt there is waste in the public sector, as there is in the private sector, but how much?

It would be useful to know so that we can decide what is or isn't "chicken feed".

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 13:30

Tories received more votes than either Labour, Lib Dem or all the other nut case parties...
Yes they did. The Tories received 10,703,754 votes out of a total 29,691,780. Labour received 8,609,527 and the LibDems 6,836,824. No other party received more than a million votes. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Results))

Or in other words, when faced with the choice of the three main parties, 15,446,351 people did not vote Tory.

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 13:32

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 13:37

Yes they did. The Tories received 10,703,754 votes out of a total 29,691,780. Labour received 8,609,527 and the LibDems 6,836,824. No other party received more than a million votes. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Results))

Or in other words, when faced with the choice of the three main parties, 15,446,351 people did not vote Tory.

Or to put it another way

over 21m voted against Labour, over 72% of the country didn't want Labour, I think that counts as the majority, but wtf I haven't a link for that so it must be untrue.

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 13:38

Every single book that my child reads has far more brown faces in them than in reality and why? Political Correctness that's why. Labour will have created a new job where some Guardian reading lentil muncher makes sure every kids book is disportionate re number of handicapped and ethnic characters.
Yes... There's a government post which determines how childrens' illustrators should colour the faces they draw. You carry on believing that if it makes you feel better. :dozey:

CBeebies - blonde with one arm, light on the loafers white bloke, Chinese woman and a black chap - is that representative of the UK population, is it ****.
How many people appear on CBeebies? And you've found me one with a disability, one of Asian descent, and one of Afro-Carribean descent (I don't understand what "light on the loafers white bloke" means). So a grand total of four people out of... how many? Sounds like an under representation if anything.

These students should repay their fees regardless of what income they are on, once they get a job then it should be taken from them at source. Don't know why the start rate has been raised from 15k to 21k, 15k is fine as it is.
Once they start earning they'll be paying basic-rate income tax, which makes a contribution to the pot which funded - amongst many other things - their tuition fees.

MrMetro

22nd December 2010, 13:44

Bolton Midnight, when was the last time you posted something about motorsport? You should just relax about New Labour, they are not in power anymore...

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 13:55

Every...
You would make a hopeless "Just a Minute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s5dp)" contestant :laugh: Cries of "evasion" would be heard :p :

Do you, or do you not, have a figure for the amount of alleged public sector waste to compare with the £850bn bank bailout, or the £1000.4 bn national debt?

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 14:17

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 14:23

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story

shows the real debt not what some left wing agenda paper reckons it is.

As does this

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/

This more believeable than your links

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/councils-to-sack-all-the-wrong-people-201012143348/

Yay, you're learning to put links in. Shame one of them links to a trailer for a documentary, one links to the front page of a vested-interest pressure group, and the third links to what appears to be some attempt at a comic. Never mind, keep at it.

But links or no links, you've spectacularly missed the point Arrows was making. He didn't dispute that the national debt is huge, he asked what effect your proposals for sacking 2 million public sector workers would have - even supposing for a moment is was practical.

It'd be like pouring a glass of vodka into a swimming pool and calling it a cocktail.

Which bit of the bank bailout will be paid back with profits are you struggling with?

This (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/12/14/bank-bailout-will-cost-us-for-years-to-come-audit-chiefs-warn-86908-22783946/) is from two weeks ago, about a report from the National Audit Office (go ahead and accuse them of lying, like you did with the Office of National Statistics):

But the NAO said it was still unclear if the taxpayer would ever be able to recoup its losses on stakes held in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group - currently in the red to the tune of £12.5 billion.

Or if you prefer another source:

THE UK government may never claw back the taxpayer funds ploughed into Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) warns today
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotlands-banking-crisis/Taxpayer-may-never-get-back.6660863.jp

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 15:29

Yay, you're learning to put links in. Shame one of them links to a trailer for a documentary, one links to the front page of a vested-interest pressure group, and the third links to what appears to be some attempt at a comic. Never mind, keep at it.

But links or no links, you've spectacularly missed the point Arrows was making. He didn't dispute that the national debt is huge, he asked what effect your proposals for sacking 2 million public sector workers would have - even supposing for a moment is was practical.

It'd be like pouring a glass of vodka into a swimming pool and calling it a cocktail.

This (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/12/14/bank-bailout-will-cost-us-for-years-to-come-audit-chiefs-warn-86908-22783946/) is from two weeks ago, about a report from the National Audit Office (go ahead and accuse them of lying, like you did with the Office of National Statistics):

Or if you prefer another source:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotlands-banking-crisis/Taxpayer-may-never-get-back.6660863.jp

A documentary all about the real mess we are in and why reducing the size of the public sector is an absolute must do if we are ever to get out of it this Labour created mess.

Taxpayers Alliance is far more truthful than Independent or Guardian as it shows how much is being spunked away by the public sector. Study it, you'll learn something.

Daily Mash > Guardian

If you are in business and have heaps of debt you cannot spend your way out of debt as Labour tried to do by creating non-jobs to bribe folk into voting Labour (turkeys don't vote for Christmas). So heaps need to be sacked and those retained need massive pay cuts and their cushy pensions massively reduced. It is the only way to reduce the debts.

Money has already come back from Labour's bail out and the rest will come back with profits, besides not bailing the banks out was just not an option, only a complete cretin would think so.

Dave B

22nd December 2010, 15:43

A documentary all about the real mess we are in and why reducing the size of the public sector is an absolute must do if we are ever to get out of it this Labour created mess.
Again you miss the point: nobody's disputing that there's a large deficit. However, the economy needs stimulating and the coalitions plans depend on the critically flawed notion that the private sector will rush into the vacuum created by the scaling back of the public sector - this is dangerously unworkable.

Taxpayers Alliance is far more truthful than Independent or Guardian as it shows how much is being spunked away by the public sector. Study it, you'll learn something.
I'm well aware of the Taxpayers' Alliance, thank you. They're a vested-interest pressure group with some wealthy Conservative supporting benefactors, who hypocritically campaign for fairer taxes while hiding behind dubious charitable status to avoid paying tax themselves.

If you are in business and have heaps of debt you cannot spend your way out of debt as Labour tried to do by creating non-jobs to bribe folk into voting Labour (turkeys don't vote for Christmas). So heaps need to be sacked and those retained need massive pay cuts and their cushy pensions massively reduced. It is the only way to reduce the debts.
There's simply no comparison, and the fact that you attempt to make one betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. For starters, if a business lays off staff, it doesn't have to pay them benefits or deal with the consequences to the wider economy.

Money has already come back from Labour's bail out and the rest will come back with profits, besides not bailing the banks out was just not an option, only a complete cretin would think so.
Some money has been returned, yes, but what did you make of the NAO report which predicts we may never break even on RBS or Lloyds? Besides, you again dodge the issue. Nobody's saying the banks shouldn't have been helped to some extent, the question remains unanswered: how will decimating the public sector be anything other than a drop in the ocean compared to the overall defecit?

One more thing, a little amuse-bouche for you: you criticise the rise in the number of public sector workers but did you know that since 2008 Lloyds TSB banking group are included in the official figures, and that Northern Rock have been included since the end of 2007? [source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/17/public-sector-pay-uk-data)]

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 16:03

...this Labour created mess.
A Tory government myth. Their hope is that with repetition it will be believed. The mess was the result of a global economic downturn. If Labour had created it only the UK would be suffering and it is blindingly obvious that is not the case. The UK was hit hard largely because 40 per cent of its GDP is reliant on the financial industry, whose mess we are now paying for.

Taxpayers Alliance is far more truthful than Independent or Guardian as it shows how much is being spunked away by the public sector. Study it, you'll learn something.
The Taxpayers Alliance is a pressure group calling for low taxes. Matthew Elliott, the CEO lives in France and doesn't pay UK tax (like Monaco resident Sir Philip Green who is advising the goverment). The founders of the TPA are associated with the Conservative Party, and the TPA's campaign manager works for Iain Duncan Smith.

If you are in business and have heaps of debt you cannot spend your way out of debt...
You can. Companies often increase their advertising, for example, when they're struggling, in order to attract new business and therefore income.
Money has already come back from Labour's bail out and the rest will come back with profits, besides not bailing the banks out was just not an option, only a complete cretin would think so.
Surely a Conservative like yourself would want incompetent, failing businesses or organisations to go to the wall, and not expect them to be given government handouts? I agree that the banking system could not be allowed to fail, but the bailout is rather at odds with the Tory ideology of the free market.

I think it's safe to assume you don't have a figure for the amount of alleged public sector waste for comparison purposes.

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 16:34

Again you miss the point: nobody's disputing that there's a large deficit. However, the economy needs stimulating and the coalitions plans depend on the critically flawed notion that the private sector will rush into the vacuum created by the scaling back of the public sector - this is dangerously unworkable.

I'm well aware of the Taxpayers' Alliance, thank you. They're a vested-interest pressure group with some wealthy Conservative supporting benefactors, who hypocritically campaign for fairer taxes while hiding behind dubious charitable status to avoid paying tax themselves.

There's simply no comparison, and the fact that you attempt to make one betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. For starters, if a business lays off staff, it doesn't have to pay them benefits or deal with the consequences to the wider economy.

Some money has been returned, yes, but what did you make of the NAO report which predicts we may never break even on RBS or Lloyds? Besides, you again dodge the issue. Nobody's saying the banks shouldn't have been helped to some extent, the question remains unanswered: how will decimating the public sector be anything other than a drop in the ocean compared to the overall defecit?

One more thing, a little amuse-bouche for you: you criticise the rise in the number of public sector workers but did you know that since 2008 Lloyds TSB banking group are included in the official figures, and that Northern Rock have been included since the end of 2007? [source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/17/public-sector-pay-uk-data)]

I am not missing the point.

We as a country are massively in debt, a trillion pounds and it is growing all the time. So we have to cut out all the waste. Politically correct non-jobs are waste; so have to go - they should never have been created in the first place but that was just Labour buying votes with our money.

I am in business myself and know full well you cannot buy your way out of debt; you need to cut your waste down and tighten your belt. This includes the ‘state’ even though for some unknown reason the unions think they are above all that, frigging dinosaurs.

Only way to stimulate the economy is to get folk spending, this will happen if we get tax cuts but we can't afford them at present as we are having to deal with Labour's debts. The public sector does not create wealth it just absorbs it.

Paying Diversity Out Reach Managers dole is cheaper than paying them wages, besides if they are such go getters they won't struggle getting proper jobs within the private sector, if they are unemployable then why were they employed in the first place?

Have you ever seen the Monty Python pantomime horse sketch?

That report is guesswork at best so not worthy of being read, I prefer to deal in reality, such as the Taxpayer's Alliance that tells it as it is not as it may be.

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 16:50

A Tory government myth. Their hope is that with repetition it will be believed. The mess was the result of a global economic downturn. If Labour had created it only the UK would be suffering and it is blindingly obvious that is not the case. The UK was hit hard largely because 40 per cent of its GDP is reliant on the financial industry, whose mess we are now paying for.

The Taxpayers Alliance is a pressure group calling for low taxes. Matthew Elliott, the CEO lives in France and doesn't pay UK tax (like Monaco resident Sir Philip Green who is advising the goverment). The founders of the TPA are associated with the Conservative Party, and the TPA's campaign manager works for Iain Duncan Smith.

You can. Companies often increase their advertising, for example, when they're struggling, in order to attract new business and therefore income.
Surely a Conservative like yourself would want incompetent, failing businesses or organisations to go to the wall, and not expect them to be given government handouts? I agree that the banking system could not be allowed to fail, but the bailout is rather at odds with the Tory ideology of the free market.

I think it's safe to assume you don't have a figure for the amount of alleged public sector waste for comparison purposes.

Labour allowed the banks to act so recklessly, despite being advised to rein them in time and time again. Then they compounded the problem by wasting so much of our money on the public sector.

All good people who know what they are on about, unlike the Unions who forced Red Ed on Labour even though Labour didn't want him.

Spending money on advertising is not spending money on works of art or politically correct bollocks. I can just imagine my bank manager's face if I asked her for a loan to buy some worthless piece of art for my businesses waiting area. But I'm in the real world not the public sector.

I was annoyed about Labour's scrappage scheme as it only helped a small portion of the public sector, a reduction in business rates would have helped everyone and not just a few franchised car dealers.

Nobody has an exact figure on public sector waste, as it is so vast nobody knows, the only ones that do have a vested interest in taxpayers not finding out.

Rollo

22nd December 2010, 19:33

Only way to stimulate the economy is to get folk spending, this will happen if we get tax cuts but we can't afford them at present as we are having to deal with Labour's debts.

Wrong. If you reduce the size of the public sector to zero, then the resulting sectors of the economy need to keep spending at increased levels to maintain the same size of the economy.

Aggregate Income = Consumer Spending + Investment Spending + Government Spending + Exports Receipts - Savings - Taxation - Imports Payments

Y = C+I+G+X-S-T-M

The biggest aggregate stimulants of the economy are spending on Investment in new projects and Government spending (which quite often entails new projects like infrastructure).

Tax Cuts will change the immediate level of consumer spending and savings, but in an economy that's already depressed, tax cuts lead to increased savings as people's sentiment is uncertain and the economy shrinks because with the level of savings increasing, money is removed from the circular flow.
I'm sorry, but that's one of the chief reasons why the Great Depression wasn't really stopped in Britain until there was a massive burst in Government Spending called WW2.

The public sector does not create wealth it just absorbs it.

Really? So policemen, doctors, teachers, road builders, politicians, council workers and civil servants don't need to eat, live in houses, pay their utility bills etc? Their incomes simply just diappear into thin air?
If the police force was privatised tommorrow and replace with a private firm, would their work which is identical to the previous day magically "create wealth" as you put it?

ArrowsFA1

22nd December 2010, 19:57

Nobody has an exact figure on public sector waste...
This is public money we are talking about, money that the government of the day collects from our taxes. Are you seriously wanting us to believe that while the public debt is known, and the money used to bail out the banks is known, that the government does not know what it is spending on public services and is incapable of identifying "waste"? Never mind that they are prepared to make potentially damaging and extensive cuts.

I'm sorry, but you have made sweeping statements about how useless the public sector is, and those that work in it are, without providing one shred of evidence.

By all means have a view of what should be done, but at least base it on some sort of reality rather than trotting out Tory soundbites. This is all of our futures we are talking about.

Daniel

22nd December 2010, 20:09

I was annoyed about Labour's scrappage scheme as it only helped a small portion of the public sector, a reduction in business rates would have helped everyone and not just a few franchised car dealers.

Congratulations for getting it so wrong.

We bought a Fiat 500 on scrappage which otherwise just wouldn't have been purchased.

It cost £10,720 now VAT was 15% back then so the VAT we paid on the car was almost £1400. Now the government contributed £1000 and Fiat contributed another £1000 so the government was actually £400 better off from us through the scrappage scheme. Now of course there were some cheaper cars like the Fiat Panda where the government probably lost maybe £200 or £300 but by and large the cost to the taxpayer of scrappage was probably very low or perhaps even a profit.

chuck34

22nd December 2010, 21:23

I'm sorry, but that's one of the chief reasons why the Great Depression wasn't really stopped in Britain until there was a massive burst in Government Spending called WW2.

So all the money spent on public works (at least here in the US) in the 30's didn't count? Why?

You are right that the war was the only thing that brought us out of the Depression, but it wasn't solely the public sector spending that did it.

Rollo

22nd December 2010, 22:09

Bolton Midnight

22nd December 2010, 23:56

Wrong. If you reduce the size of the public sector to zero, then the resulting sectors of the economy need to keep spending at increased levels to maintain the same size of the economy.

Aggregate Income = Consumer Spending + Investment Spending + Government Spending + Exports Receipts - Savings - Taxation - Imports Payments

Y = C+I+G+X-S-T-M

The biggest aggregate stimulants of the economy are spending on Investment in new projects and Government spending (which quite often entails new projects like infrastructure).

Tax Cuts will change the immediate level of consumer spending and savings, but in an economy that's already depressed, tax cuts lead to increased savings as people's sentiment is uncertain and the economy shrinks because with the level of savings increasing, money is removed from the circular flow.
I'm sorry, but that's one of the chief reasons why the Great Depression wasn't really stopped in Britain until there was a massive burst in Government Spending called WW2.

Really? So policemen, doctors, teachers, road builders, politicians, council workers and civil servants don't need to eat, live in houses, pay their utility bills etc? Their incomes simply just diappear into thin air?
If the police force was privatised tommorrow and replace with a private firm, would their work which is identical to the previous day magically "create wealth" as you put it?

I'm not saying get rid of the entire public sector, just all the non essential non jobs. We need bin men but we don't need bin inspectors or twenty managers of refuse collection - understand?

I've no problems about some large projects to help, some new super prisons, more roads, better airports - not stupid things like wind farms, olympics, drug drop in centres - build things that everyone will benefit from.

Tax Cuts under Tories helped create booms where everyone benefited. With interest rates as low as they are people won't save they will spend.

Tax cuts benefits everyone not just a select few within the public sector. Besides every penny the public sector earns comes from the private sector and the private sector is hurting right now so it only follows that the public sector must shrink and suffer also until the private sector can pay for them it is not the other way round the private sector should not suffer purely to fund the public sector that is idiotic in the extreme (Labour in other words).

Bolton Midnight

23rd December 2010, 00:09

This is public money we are talking about, money that the government of the day collects from our taxes. Are you seriously wanting us to believe that while the public debt is known, and the money used to bail out the banks is known, that the government does not know what it is spending on public services and is incapable of identifying "waste"? Never mind that they are prepared to make potentially damaging and extensive cuts.

I'm sorry, but you have made sweeping statements about how useless the public sector is, and those that work in it are, without providing one shred of evidence.

By all means have a view of what should be done, but at least base it on some sort of reality rather than trotting out Tory soundbites. This is all of our futures we are talking about.

If it was so easy to identify waste, then surely it would have been stopped a long time ago, unless you are suggesting Labour encouraged wasting taxpayer's hard earned?

Have you ever had dealings with the public sector, they are absolutely hopeless. A few days ago I got a 4 page bulletin all about how Croc shoes are not needle proof - no **** Sherlock. Some pillocks were paid my money to come up with that pearl of wisdom, no doubt a large committee that first had to go on a fact finding jaunt to Haiti. DVLA biggest bunch of ****wits known to man, after I was banned they didn't send my licence back for months and expected me to remain off the road until they got their act together then sent me two licences. Had to deal with CSA in the past due to an employee, in the end I refused to dock his salary as they just annoyed me so much they were not fit for purpose. Any local council, as much use as a chocolate fire guard yet pay themselves large salaries despite the people in their towns all suffering. But they are allowed to be useless as what alternative have you got, they know you have to go through them so can carry on being useless twats.

Have provided plenty of evidence, not my fault if you choose to ignore it, the taxpayers alliance website is packed with facts and figures re wasteful spending ditto the Ch 4 documentary about how the public sector is now so big it is bigger than the private sector that is still expected to fund it.

Bolton Midnight

23rd December 2010, 00:16

Congratulations for getting it so wrong.

We bought a Fiat 500 on scrappage which otherwise just wouldn't have been purchased.

It cost £10,720 now VAT was 15% back then so the VAT we paid on the car was almost £1400. Now the government contributed £1000 and Fiat contributed another £1000 so the government was actually £400 better off from us through the scrappage scheme. Now of course there were some cheaper cars like the Fiat Panda where the government probably lost maybe £200 or £300 but by and large the cost to the taxpayer of scrappage was probably very low or perhaps even a profit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7521406/Car-scrappage-scheme-not-value-for-money.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/motoring/article.html?in_article_id=500433&in_page_id=53949

You'd have got a better discount without the scheme; well done you've been had.

And pray tell how did the scrappage scheme help a builder, dentist, teacher etc oh no it didn't they just had to fund it.

Not to mention the environmental damage of scrapping so many perfectly fine cars and the environmental damage of building so many unnecessary cars. Where will all the future learner/first cars come from if they have been dumped on airfields and left to rot?

Nope it was a silly scheme, a reduction in Business rates would have been far fairer and really helped the nation rather than a very small section of it. No doubt it was done to appease a few bolshy Union types seeing as they run Labour.

Rollo

23rd December 2010, 00:44

Tax cuts benefits everyone not just a select few within the public sector. Besides every penny the public sector earns comes from the private sector and the private sector is hurting right now so it only follows that the public sector must shrink and suffer also until the private sector can pay for them it is not the other way round the private sector should not suffer purely to fund the public sector that is idiotic in the extreme (Labour in other words).

Every penny the private sector earns comes from households and individuals.

If the public sector "shrinks", there isn't an immediate take up in slack in the economy. What you instantly create is a decrease in the aggregate demand for labour, and the rate of employment falls to a lower equilibrium position. Your solution is to solve the problems with the economy by deliberately causing a rise in unemployment. Rather than make the private sector "hurt" you would choose to exacerbate the problem by cutting off a great chunk of their incomes which is aggregate spending by households.

And pray tell how did the scrappage scheme help a builder, dentist, teacher etc oh no it didn't they just had to fund it.

By increasing aggregate demand for motor vehicles. Motor builders, traders, parts builders and other associated people would have then used their incomes and spent them on things like building works, dentistry, teaching and tutorage etc.

Bolton Midnight

23rd December 2010, 01:32

Every penny the private sector earns comes from households and individuals.

If the public sector "shrinks", there isn't an immediate take up in slack in the economy. What you instantly create is a decrease in the aggregate demand for labour, and the rate of employment falls to a lower equilibrium position. Your solution is to solve the problems with the economy by deliberately causing a rise in unemployment. Rather than make the private sector "hurt" you would choose to exacerbate the problem by cutting off a great chunk of their incomes which is aggregate spending by households.

By increasing aggregate demand for motor vehicles. Motor builders, traders, parts builders and other associated people would have then used their incomes and spent them on things like building works, dentistry, teaching and tutorage etc.

You can not just give money we don't have to the public sector and hope that they will spend it within the private sector who will give a percentage of it back to fund the public sector, the maths just don't work.

Pay some manager 50k, he then gives roughly a third of that back to the state in Tax and NI, so the private sector is now 35k worse off, the manager spends most of that 34k in the private sector who then give a third to the state in tax/NI say 10k - so the private sector has spent 35k to keep 25k. Sack the manager and pay him benefits only and we can then have a tax cut which will enable us to spend more within the private sector. Everyone wins and if the manager is any good he'll soon find work within the private sector and suddenly realise what the real world is all about.

No it did not, all it did was earn money for foreign car makers at the expense of British taxpayers.

chuck34

23rd December 2010, 04:11

The money spent on public works was largely designed to get the economy moving again. During FDR's first term of office and in part as a result of the First New Deal, GDP grew at quite high levels.

And yes it wasn't solely the public sector spending that did it, nothing is the sole reason for anything in economics.

The New Deal worked sooo well. That's why the unemployment rate in 1936 was still 15% and went up again to 18% in 1938. Yep those public works sure did pull us right out of the Depression.

Rollo

23rd December 2010, 05:12

The New Deal worked sooo well. That's why the unemployment rate in 1936 was still 15% and went up again to 18% in 1938. Yep those public works sure did pull us right out of the Depression.

Which had fallen 10 points from 25% in 1933 and from 37% of non-farm workers.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

ArrowsFA1

23rd December 2010, 09:16

If it was so easy to identify waste, then surely it would have been stopped a long time ago...
A fair point, but one which rather undermines your claims that profligate waste exists across the public sector. I have no doubt that savings can, and will, be made but the current government's sweeping cuts appear to be driven by ideological zeal rather than an assessment of the services provided and the differing needs of communities across the country.

Have you ever had dealings with the public sector...
Yes. On a daily basis

You can not just give money we don't have to the public sector and hope that they will spend it within the private sector...
Just as you cannot make job cuts in the public sector and assume that the private sector will generate vacancies to offset those job losses, and yet that's exactly what this government have promised will happen.

Bolton Midnight

23rd December 2010, 14:06

A fair point, but one which rather undermines your claims that profligate waste exists across the public sector. I have no doubt that savings can, and will, be made but the current government's sweeping cuts appear to be driven by ideological zeal rather than an assessment of the services provided and the differing needs of communities across the country.

Yes. On a daily basis

Just as you cannot make job cuts in the public sector and assume that the private sector will generate vacancies to offset those job losses, and yet that's exactly what this government have promised will happen.

Yes the Tories don't like waste within the public sector as they appreciate that the man on the street is paying for it; that to me is a good thing not a bad thing. The public sector is now bigger than the private sector which funds it, this is crackers and needs addressing.

Services can remain largely unaffected as long as the non essential jobs go, if they hang on through Union strike action etc then frontline services will suffer as a result. Keep the nurse but sack the unneeded managers - easy. Or else they could all take a 25% pay cut and then everyone would be safe even the non jobs.

On a daily basis that you'd rather not comment about, says everything. You deal with them daily yet can not praise them at the same time.

Based on your thinking you'd be quite happy for the unemployed to receive 1k a week? After all they'd spend it rather than save it so it would stimulate the economy - all those fags, burgers, shell suits do the country a power of good - or do you now see the folly in giving hard earned taxpayers money away to the feckless and lazy (dole/public sector - pretty much the same thing in a lot of cases bot aren't needed and need cutting back).

ArrowsFA1

23rd December 2010, 17:42

The public sector is now bigger than the private sector which funds it, this is crackers and needs addressing.
In what way is the public sector bigger? In terms of employment the public sector employs 6.014m, and the private sector employs 23.111m (source (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=407))

The private sector does not fund the public sector, UK taxpayers do.

On a daily basis that you'd rather not comment about, says everything. You deal with them daily yet can not praise them at the same time.
I'm happy to praise or criticise the public sector in equal measure because while it does outstanding work it also has its faults. It is no different in that respect to the private sector and I agree that cuts can be made. However, the public sector needs to be defended from (as I said earlier) sweeping cuts that appear to be driven by ideological zeal and which do not take account of the differing needs of communities across the country.

Daniel

23rd December 2010, 22:33

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7521406/Car-scrappage-scheme-not-value-for-money.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/motoring/article.html?in_article_id=500433&in_page_id=53949

You'd have got a better discount without the scheme; well done you've been had..

:rotflmao:

You really are clueless.

This is a promise...... I will give you £50 if you can find a dealer willing to sell a brand new Fiat 500 1.2 Lounge for £2000 discount. In fact lets make it £100. I am that confident. See matey, not everyone is as ignorant and stupid as you think they are, some of us did the maths on our purchases and bought things which actually had a true £2000 discount ;)

This is a perfect example of how you make blanket statements which make sense in your mind and may make sense for some people. The problem is that you then apply this logic to people for whom it isn't valid.

Some people were had by scrappage it is fair to say, but not I.

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 08:35

In what way is the public sector bigger? In terms of employment the public sector employs 6.014m, and the private sector employs 23.111m (source (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=407))

The private sector does not fund the public sector, UK taxpayers do.

I'm happy to praise or criticise the public sector in equal measure because while it does outstanding work it also has its faults. It is no different in that respect to the private sector and I agree that cuts can be made. However, the public sector needs to be defended from (as I said earlier) sweeping cuts that appear to be driven by ideological zeal and which do not take account of the differing needs of communities across the country.

Did you watch the documentary by Ch4 I put the link to, sorry clearly not.

6m does not include heaps of quangos and other public sector types, the real figure is 8½m.

If I go to a restaurant and the service/food is crap I know not to go there in the future, now how does that work re say income tax can I pay it somewhere else other then HM Tax oh no of course not so they can be as ****e as they like as they know I've no alternative. There's no incentive for them to be good at their job as they will be paid and promoted regardless.

If you are happy for non essential roles to be paid within the public sector then I take it you'd be happy to give twice as much money to the long term unemployed slackers.

UK taxpayers are the private sector as all the public sector folk do is give some of our money back to us when they pay tax & NI, it really is not rocket science.

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 08:38

:rotflmao:

You really are clueless.

This is a promise...... I will give you £50 if you can find a dealer willing to sell a brand new Fiat 500 1.2 Lounge for £2000 discount. In fact lets make it £100. I am that confident. See matey, not everyone is as ignorant and stupid as you think they are, some of us did the maths on our purchases and bought things which actually had a true £2000 discount ;)

This is a perfect example of how you make blanket statements which make sense in your mind and may make sense for some people. The problem is that you then apply this logic to people for whom it isn't valid.

Some people were had by scrappage it is fair to say, but not I.

As ever when in doubt fling insults.

Pre scrappage scheme dealers were giving whopping discounts on all manner of cars not just crappy Fiats.

A lot of folk who got cars under the scrappage scheme were unable to afford the payments (hence why they were previously driving around in old bangers) how can putting folk in debt be a good thing?

Fools who thought they were getting a bargain are just the types who also get themselves into debt.

ArrowsFA1

24th December 2010, 08:52

6m does not include heaps of quangos and other public sector types, the real figure is 8½m.
Can you provide the source for that figure?

Whether you will or not the question you were originally asked remains: In what way is the public sector bigger than the private sector?

Daniel

24th December 2010, 10:09

As ever when in doubt fling insults.

Pre scrappage scheme dealers were giving whopping discounts on all manner of cars not just crappy Fiats.

A lot of folk who got cars under the scrappage scheme were unable to afford the payments (hence why they were previously driving around in old bangers) how can putting folk in debt be a good thing?

Fools who thought they were getting a bargain are just the types who also get themselves into debt.

:laugh:

Again, you don't seem to understand. The Fiat 500 was NEVER discounted by anything near £2k due to the fact that there was always an undersupply of them....... The best discount you could get get before scrappage was about £400....

Also, crappy Fiat's? The Panda and the Fiat 500 are some of the best built and most realiable small cars on the road today :laugh:

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 12:11

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 12:14

Can you provide the source for that figure?

Whether you will or not the question you were originally asked remains: In what way is the public sector bigger than the private sector?

So if I find a link showing that the figure of 6m does not include quangos and (trying to remember the other initials for public sector wasters that aren't counted as public sector) you'll agree then as you seem to think if it's on the net then it's true.

Sorry again for the hard of understanding

WATCH THE CH4 DOCUMENTARY

it needs slashing down to size and needs it doing ASAP

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 12:32

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 12:40

B*llocks, Fiats are great cars :p

since when?

rusting, unreliable, ugly are Fiat attributes

Although they have made one or two decent looking cars but they are right up there with Alfa and Lancia in terms of **** build quality

Weren't called this for no good reason

Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 12:48

since when?

rusting, unreliable, ugly are Fiat attributes

Although they have made one or two decent looking cars but they are right up there with Alfa and Lancia in terms of **** build quality

Weren't called this for no good reason

Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/11/19/fiat-500-voted-car-of-the-year-2008/ You were saying?

ArrowsFA1

24th December 2010, 12:54

...you seem to think if it's on the net then it's true.
Not at all. You've already illustrated that some net links, such as the TaxPayers' Alliance link you posted earlier, are politically motivated and therefore misleading so clearly not all net links provide true or accurate information.

However, the numbers I gave for public and private sector employment are collated and provided by the Office for National Statistics which is a non-ministerial government department and constituted to be free of political interference.

Which all brings us back again to the question which you either cannot, or do not want to, answer which was in response to this claim of yours:

The public sector is now bigger than the private sector which funds it, this is crackers and needs addressing.

In what way is the public sector bigger than the private sector?

Daniel

24th December 2010, 13:04

Fiats are crap, always have been and always will be, you're off your trolley if you think otherwise.

http://www.eruptingmind.com/how-long-will-your-car-last/

top Fiat is 38th out of 100, wow ubber reliable

:laugh:

Your attempts to find links to support your opinions are hilarious.

Your list shows cars which are as old as 1998 models at the very least. There are probably even older cars in there if you look.

Now for a reputable survey :laugh:

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/jd-power-survey-2010/city-cars/250115

Yes Fiats were crap for a long time but since the Panda, Grande Punto, 500 and new Bravo have come along they're very well built cars.

You really are a ignorant loudmouth :laugh:

Daniel

24th December 2010, 13:05

since when?

rusting, unreliable, ugly are Fiat attributes

Although they have made one or two decent looking cars but they are right up there with Alfa and Lancia in terms of **** build quality

Weren't called this for no good reason

Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow

:laugh:

So Ford's are much better I'm guessing?

http://www.feoc-uk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63280

:laugh:

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:26

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/11/19/fiat-500-voted-car-of-the-year-2008/ You were saying?

Often wondered who took any notice of those 'car of the year' awards

complete bollocks, just look back at some of the crap that has won things like that in the past

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:30

Now for a reputable survey :laugh:

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/jd-power-survey-2010/city-cars/250115

You really are a ignorant loudmouth :laugh:

That list is like picking which is better herpes or syphilis

Ahh yes the insults flow when stumped

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:31

So Ford's are much better I'm guessing?

Do Fiat even do a Focus RS equivalent ?? Nope

Ugly cars for morons

Daniel

24th December 2010, 13:31

That list is like picking which is better herpes or syphilis

Ahh yes the insults flow when stumped
Stumped? I'm not stumped :laugh:

The JD power is a recognised survey.

Daniel

24th December 2010, 13:33

Do Fiat even do a Focus RS equivalent ?? Nope

Your point?

At this point there is no plan for a hot Bravo or a hot Giulietta but I fail to see what your point is?

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:33

Not at all. You've already illustrated that some net links, such as the TaxPayers' Alliance link you posted earlier, are politically motivated and therefore misleading so clearly not all net links provide true or accurate information.

However, the numbers I gave for public and private sector employment are collated and provided by the Office for National Statistics which is a non-ministerial government department and constituted to be free of political interference.

Which all brings us back again to the question which you either cannot, or do not want to, answer which was in response to this claim of yours:

In what way is the public sector bigger than the private sector?

Taxpayers Alliance is far more accurate than anything I've seen posted in here yet, certainly more so than the likes of ONS and Guardian written by pinkos for pinkos.

For the third friggin time, have you watched the documentary I linked to, on Ch 4 who are famed for their neutrality, watch it and then only after having watched and understood it feel free to pop back and apologise.

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 13:35

Do Fiat even do a Focus RS equivalent ?? Nope

Abarth.

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:36

Stumped? I'm not stumped :laugh:

If you weren't you wouldn't fling insults around like that, you'd not speak to me like that if we were face to face so why do it on here, keyboard warrior are you?

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 13:37

Your point?

At this point there is no plan for a hot Bravo or a hot Giulietta but I fail to see what your point is?

They are ****e

fine if you are a girlie maybe but I'd rather walk

ShiftingGears

24th December 2010, 13:59

You really are a ignorant loudmouth :laugh:

:up:

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 14:01

:up:

sunk to the nuts in each other eh

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 14:02

They are ****e

fine if you are a girlie maybe but I'd rather walk

I don't know about that, the Abarth range from Fiat is awesome.

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 14:04

Do Fiat even do a Focus RS equivalent ?? Nope

Ugly cars for morons

Abarth is awesome from Fiat. The Abarth Punto Evo is a fantastic car.

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 14:25

Abarth is awesome from Fiat. The Abarth Punto Evo is a fantastic car.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=22323

says a Clio is better

and were Abarth part of the scrappage scheme as a stand alone marque?

MrMetro

24th December 2010, 14:35

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=22323

says a Clio is better

and were Abarth part of the scrappage scheme as a stand alone marque?

Hang on, I thought website like that didn't matter? Abarth is NOT a standalone marque.

Daniel

24th December 2010, 14:37

Hang on, I thought website like that didn't matter? Abarth is NOT a standalone marque.
Technically Abarth are a standalone marque :)

Bolton, I would agree that the Clio is better, it's a fantastic car in RS form :)

ArrowsFA1

24th December 2010, 15:17

...have you watched the documentary I linked to...
No, because you will note from the link you provided that the programme is not available on 4oD. I think it is safe to assume that Martin Durkin shares your views.

Durkin argues that to put Britain back on track we need to radically rethink the role of the state, stop politicians spending money in our name and introduce, among other measures, flat taxes to make Britain's economy boom again.

The Taxpayers Alliance more accurate than the ONS? You've given us no reason to doubt that you find the views of a group of Conservative multi-millionaires who advise the current government on policy from the comfort of their tax havens more acceptable than the facts as presented by an independent body.

Reality does tend to get in the way of ideology from time to time, as this government will no doubt discover.

:wave:

Daniel

24th December 2010, 15:22

Reality does tend to get in the way of ideology from time to time, as this government will no doubt discover.

:wave:

Amen to that!

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 18:07

Why now all of a sudden, Labour didn't let spiralling debts get in the way of employing millions to do work that just wasn't needed.

Shame the link is down, you'd have all learnt from it. And given you these facts and figures you so crave.

The ONS figures are flawed straight away as they don't include Quangos and this bunch http://www.englandsrdas.com/ both of who are paid for by the public purse. There you go a web link so it must be true.

Yep Abarth are a stand alone marque and Clio far better than crappy Fiat bingo something we all agree on.

The scrappage scheme was a bad idea, it only helped a handful of foreign car makers not all of the UK, not to mention an environmental disaster.

Daniel

24th December 2010, 18:11

Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish, Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish, Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish, Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish, Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish, Blah blah blah blah blah, gibberish,

Edited for accuracy :)

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 18:39

When stumped, insult

yawn

Daniel

24th December 2010, 18:48

When stumped, insult

yawn
When ignorant, use words like stumped even when your opponent has shown evidence from reliable sources which completely disagree with what you've said.

Bolton Midnight

24th December 2010, 20:20

When ignorant, use words like stumped even when your opponent has shown evidence from reliable sources which completely disagree with what you've said.

ONS figures do not include Quangos and RDAs you know that's the case or had no reply so insulted, seen it time and time again in here from folk who all seem to be under the misapprehension they are all knowing.

You've shown Jack so far.

BDunnell

24th December 2010, 20:55

ONS figures do not include Quangos and RDAs you know that's the case or had no reply so insulted, seen it time and time again in here from folk who all seem to be under the misapprehension they are all knowing.

How you can make such statements in English as bad as that and expect to be taken seriously, I simply cannot imagine.

Daniel

24th December 2010, 23:31

Erm Bolton midnight. I was referring to the reliability of more modern fiats

janvanvurpa

25th December 2010, 06:07

Edited for accuracy :)

Actually Daniel I think you missed the tone.
I think it needs far more exclamation points !!!!! and BIGGER letters and maybe an imbedded version of Monty Pythons Drill Instructors so we have the screeching rising pitch in the voice as he's outraged more and more alternating with the indecipherable grumbling....

Try that, would ya? (don't know how but give it a go, eh)

ArrowsFA1

27th December 2010, 15:18

Cameron has managed to conjure a narrative where this was all the result of "big government" doing "too much". It took footwork of such genius that it makes Fred Astaire look like Ann Widdecombe, but he has managed it for long enough to sound plausible to some.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-year-in-review-austerity-2168107.html

Malbec

30th December 2010, 02:18

No it did not, all it did was earn money for foreign car makers at the expense of British taxpayers.

Many of those foreign car makers having manufacturing bases in the UK commissioning contracts from British suppliers which were worst hit by the credit crunch.

The British suppliers would have been decimated had it not been for the scrappage schemes both in the UK and on the continent, but since they aren't names you'd recognise I guess they don't matter even if they employ more people than the car manufacturers do in the UK.

driveace

30th December 2010, 20:19

Well,just how many parts on the average car are made in the UK?
I repair and order lots of replacement parts that are labelled OE (Original Equipment) and the very largest majority are made in anywhere but the UK.
Bosch,Michelin,Bridgestone,NGK,Nippon,and now more and more components are being made in Korea,China,Portugal,Spain,Slovenia ,Slovakia,etc
all due to the fact that labour costs in the UK are too costly.

Malbec

31st December 2010, 15:56

Well,just how many parts on the average car are made in the UK?

Quite a few actually.

Most car manufacturers will buy in entire subsystems from suppliers to screw together to make the car with the vast majority of parts in a single car not built by the maker itself. Many of those parts are built in Britain and the supply industry here employs far more people than the car makers themselves.

Also unlike the car makers these supply manufacturers are often small to medium sized and don't have the luxury of a large cashpile to tide them over.

Therefore the drop in demand with the credit crunch linked with the refusal of banks to loan these companies bridging loans almost wiped them out. The scrappage scheme warded that off.

The other thing about the scrappage scheme was that it barely cost the taxpayer a penny in the UK. Of the 2k given half was supplied by the car makers and the remaining 1k by the government, but the VAT on the average car paid to the state was higher than the money stumped up by the government anyway. It paid for itself.

Daniel

31st December 2010, 16:38

The other thing about the scrappage scheme was that it barely cost the taxpayer a penny in the UK. Of the 2k given half was supplied by the car makers and the remaining 1k by the government, but the VAT on the average car paid to the state was higher than the money stumped up by the government anyway. It paid for itself.

Please don't bring facts into this Dylan......

I tried this before and it didn't work because people simply don't want to accept that Labour did something good.

Purchase price for our Fiat 500 = £10,720
VAT component of said car (VAT rate was 15%) = £1398
Govt scrappage contribution = £1000
Net profit to govt = £398

But hey whatever :D In some ways I'd rather that people like Bolton Midnight believed that an immigrant like myself had got his hands on 2k of his hard earned tax money and sent it away to Poland never to be seen again :rotflmao: It's far funnier than seeing that the Labour govt actually did something intelligent to stimulate the economy and keep manufacturing jobs in the UK.

ArrowsFA1

6th January 2011, 11:14

Please don't bring facts into this Dylan...
Facts can be a bit inconvenient at times can't they :p : For example: Britain's debt at the outset of the current economic crisis was lower than it was under the Conservatives in 1997.

Daniel

6th January 2011, 13:12

Facts can be a bit inconvenient at times can't they :p : For example: Britain's debt at the outset of the current economic crisis was lower than it was under the Conservatives in 1997.

Funny that :D

Oh well it took a long time for the Conservitardem's to get in because they were **** and when they inevitably **** it up it'll just take longer for the next Conservitard government to get in. So it's not all bad.

driveace

6th January 2011, 21:20

Daniel

6th January 2011, 21:27

Your not thinking of standing at the next election,for the Labour party are you Daniel?
Or related to Peter Hain,by any chance?
And just how many conponents for the Fiat 500 do you think are produced in the UK rather than Italy,Slovenia,or Slovakia
By the same token, are you thinking of standing as an easily led farm animal at the next election?
Or you related to related to related to Ken Livingston's father's uncle's tailor? Are you? Well?!?!?! ARE YOU!!!!!! I NEED ANSWERS TO MY COMPLETELY UNRELATED QUESTIONS WHICH ARE POOR ATTEMPTS AT DIGS! I NEED ANSWERS MAN!

I don't know how many components from the 500 are manufactured in Britain, I suspect that few if any components are made in the UK, but as the VAT component was more than what the government gave me in scrappage it's a slightly irrelevant point considering the govt made ~400 or so out of us buying our car.

Stick that in your socks and pull them up!

P.S I only mention the pulling up of socks as this was what Cameron said the country needed to do as a whole, presumably so whilst people were bent over he could take them up the arse as he's doing now.

AAReagles

7th January 2011, 10:37

By the same token, are you thinking of standing as an easily led farm animal at the next election?......

P.S I only mention the pulling up of socks as this was what Cameron said the country needed to do as a whole, presumably so whilst people were bent over he could take them up the arse as he's doing now.

:up: A bit eloquent, but I like it.

Wonder how well the students will respond to any future ‘budget’ proposals presented by the hierarchy.

Nothing like the separation of classes - sorry, no pun intended.

ArrowsFA1

19th January 2011, 16:25

Wonder how well the students will respond to any future ‘budget’ proposals presented by the hierarchy.
Don't suppose they'll be too impressed by the latest unemployment figures:

One in five 16 to 24-year-olds are now out of work, after a rise of 32,000 to 951,000 without jobs, the highest figure since records began in 1992.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12223226

Hazell B

19th January 2011, 16:38

One in five out of work. How many in five still in education, I wonder?

Brown, Jon Brow

19th January 2011, 16:43

EMA protests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12216294
I can't say I have any sympathy. I didn't recieve EMA when I was at college. I had a part-time job.

ArrowsFA1

19th January 2011, 16:48

One in five out of work. How many in five still in education, I wonder?

At the end of 2009, 183,200 (9.2 per cent) of 16- to 18-year-olds were (not in education or training) NEET but rates vary considerably with age – 4 per cent of 16-year-olds, 6.2 per cent of 17-year-olds and 16.9 per cent of 18-year-olds. For most young people, being NEET is a temporary outcome as they move between different education and training options – surveys estimate that only 1 per cent of young people are NEET at ages 16, 17 and 18.
LINK (http://www.education.gov.uk/16to19/participation/neet/a0064101/strategies-for-16-to-18-year-olds-not-in-education-employment-or-training-neet)

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 13:15

Nice to see Fire Extinguisher yob got sent down

Quite right too, hope they send a few more of them down, wreck their adult lives serves them right for being thick little idiots

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 13:21

By the same token, are you thinking of standing as an easily led farm animal at the next election?
Or you related to related to related to Ken Livingston's father's uncle's tailor? Are you? Well?!?!?! ARE YOU!!!!!! I NEED ANSWERS TO MY COMPLETELY UNRELATED QUESTIONS WHICH ARE POOR ATTEMPTS AT DIGS! I NEED ANSWERS MAN!

I don't know how many components from the 500 are manufactured in Britain, I suspect that few if any components are made in the UK, but as the VAT component was more than what the government gave me in scrappage it's a slightly irrelevant point considering the govt made ~400 or so out of us buying our car.

Stick that in your socks and pull them up!

P.S I only mention the pulling up of socks as this was what Cameron said the country needed to do as a whole, presumably so whilst people were bent over he could take them up the arse as he's doing now.

Still waiting to be told what makes the foreign car part manufactures so worth saving over more UK based industries that also have been and no doubt still are suffering?

Clueless

Malbec

24th January 2011, 16:06

Still waiting to be told what makes the foreign car part manufactures so worth saving over more UK based industries that also have been and no doubt still are suffering?

Clueless

UK based car parts makers WERE saved, as well as UK car dealers and other parts of the UK car manufacturing and retail sector. That foreign car parts manufacturers were helped too does not preclude British parts makers from being helped does it?

AndySpeed

24th January 2011, 16:08

Nice to see Fire Extinguisher yob got sent down

Quite right too, hope they send a few more of them down, wreck their adult lives serves them right for being thick little idiots

Very very happy to see that pathetic moron got caught. Could have done with longer if you ask me, but at least its had a significant dent on his life thus far.

Daniel

24th January 2011, 16:11

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 16:20

UK based car parts makers WERE saved, as well as UK car dealers and other parts of the UK car manufacturing and retail sector. That foreign car parts manufacturers were helped too does not preclude British parts makers from being helped does it?

Who? Can't see there being much on a crappy Fiat, Kia, etc that was made in the UK.

And what made them so much more important than all the other industries that Mandy deemed not worth helping?

A reduction in Business Rates would have helped UK firms and all of them not just the chosen few who offered Mandy a big bung / job.

Very very happy to see that pathetic moron got caught. Could have done with longer if you ask me, but at least its had a significant dent on his life thus far.

Agreed should have been a lot longer and Attempted Murder charge too.

Daniel

24th January 2011, 16:27

Who? Can't see there being much on a well built Fiat, Kia, etc that was made in the UK.

Whilst I don't know how much of a well built Fiat 500 is built in the UK, the VAT component more than covers the contribution by the government.

Malbec

24th January 2011, 16:27

Who? Can't see there being much on a crappy Fiat, Kia, etc that was made in the UK.

I didn't realise FIAT and Kia were top sellers in the UK. I was under the impression that companies like Vauxhall with a substantial British supply base competed for top spot with companies like Ford that also derives a lot of its parts from the UK. I also thought that cars like Civics and CRVs, Micras and Avensis' sold well too, again with parts mainly manufactured in the UK.

As for helping other industries, you're right that more could and should have been done. However since the car scrappage scheme pretty much paid for itself it didn't cost the taxpayer anything unlike reducing business rates.

Daniel

24th January 2011, 16:30

I didn't realise FIAT and Kia were top sellers in the UK. I was under the impression that companies like Vauxhall with a substantial British supply base competed for top spot with companies like Ford that also derives a lot of its parts from the UK. I also thought that cars like Civics and CRVs, Micras and Avensis' sold well too, again with parts mainly manufactured in the UK.

As for helping other industries, you're right that more could and should have been done. However since the car scrappage scheme pretty much paid for itself it didn't cost the taxpayer anything unlike reducing business rates.

http://www.fiat.co.uk/Content/Article.aspx?id=20279 :)

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 16:47

Utterly clueless

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/5459634/Nine-out-of-10-cars-bought-under-scrappage-scheme-are-foreign.html

It benefited foreign car makers far more than the British workers, they just had to pay for it

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 16:52

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/motoring/article.html?in_article_id=500433&in_page_id=53949

The real cost of ministerial largesse is suddenly clear. Peter Mandelson's £300 million scrappage scheme to subsidise new cars gobbled up a staggering 48,387 taxpayer years. Yes, an army of almost 50,000 working people was harnessed to fund a scheme that Lord Mandelson's own officials thought was poor value for money.

Malbec

24th January 2011, 17:02

It benefited foreign car makers far more than the British workers, they just had to pay for it

British workers didn't have to pay.

You seem not to know how the scheme was financed.

1k came directly from the car maker the car was bought from.

The other 1k came from the British government, but the state still charged VAT on each car of 15%. Therefore in order for the state and therefore the taxpayer to have made a loss the car would have had to have been sold for less than 6.67k. Its difficult to find cars that cheap so actually the state probably made a profit out of the whole scheme as the amount they got back in VAT probably exceeded what they had spent in the first place.

Simple maths really.

Your second posted article is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ford and some other car makers have indeed raised prices substantially but the scrappage scheme had nothing to do with it. Blame the exchange rates.

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 17:14

Prior to the scrappage scheme the car firms were offering bigger discounts than 2k on a lot of the models that were popular under the scheme so it ended up being no better for the buyer.

It did cost the tax payer, the extra admin alone would have outweighed the extra VAT.

And it did benefit foreign companies far more than British ones.

It was a silly idea and just yet another of Labour's many cock ups, keeping VAT at 15% for two years would have worked better.

Malbec

24th January 2011, 17:53

Prior to the scrappage scheme the car firms were offering bigger discounts than 2k on a lot of the models that were popular under the scheme so it ended up being no better for the buyer.

Car firms were also offering discounts alongside the scrappage scheme which was merely an extra inducement to buy. Discounts were not banned during this period.

Car sales rose during the scrappage scheme though not to pre-crunch levels, but enough to tide the car industry by. Therefore it was not a failure.

keeping VAT at 15% for two years would have worked better.

Dropping VAT by a mere 2.5% did little to boost sales but meant that tax income dropped substantially and retailers had to spend a lot of money doing the number crunching and repricing that came with it. Smaller businesses were hit harder with those costs. The VAT cut was worthless. You really do choose the oddest things to criticise the labour government on.

Retro Formula 1

24th January 2011, 18:40

I fail to see how anyone can class the Scrappage scheme as a success?

By the time administration etc is taken off, the scheme would at best not have cost anything to the Government some people claim.

Whoopee do?????? A scheme by Labour that hasn't lost money.

So, what benefit did the country gain out of all these sales or is VAT just a bit of a laugh now. What services were provided for the British people?

None? Nothing at all? Why? Because as Bolton has demonstrated, about 90% of the revenue raised, including all the revenue that were being raised before this disaster was dreamt up, went to foreign companies.

Daniel might be fully behind it because it helped him buy a tarts handbag and well done to him but lets not delude ourselves into saying this was a brilliant economic success.

ArrowsFA1

24th January 2011, 19:10

Labour were cock up after cock up, but the Conservatives and the puppet party have done little in the form of something positive as yet. All as bad as each other if you ask me.
Indeed. The Tories have so far failed to provide a safe pair of hands where the economy and NHS are concerned, nor have they been capable of keeping their promises but we'll see how things develop in the coming months and years.

Malbec

24th January 2011, 19:29

Indeed. The Tories have so far failed to provide a safe pair of hands where the economy and NHS are concerned,

On the NHS I disagree. The Tories have shifted priorities from increasing the volume of work to improving the quality, making it more consistent across the UK. I think the forthcoming reforms will, whilst not saving as much money as promised, build on the reforms the Labour party instituted whilst correcting their most obvious failures.

ArrowsFA1

24th January 2011, 19:48

On the NHS I disagree. The Tories have shifted priorities from increasing the volume of work to improving the quality, making it more consistent across the UK. I think the forthcoming reforms will, whilst not saving as much money as promised, build on the reforms the Labour party instituted whilst correcting their most obvious failures.
Again, time will tell. I'm yet to be convinced that Tory NHS reforms are anything more than privatisation by the back door.

Pause for thought - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/17/free-market-bill-blow-nhs-apart

Malbec

24th January 2011, 20:01

Again, time will tell. I'm yet to be convinced that Tory NHS reforms are anything more than privatisation by the back door.

Having worked in the NHS and watched Labour give private companies priority over the NHS when bidding for contracts I find accusations that the Tories are going to privatise the NHS rather rich I'm afraid. The Tories are going to alter the way private companies bid for contracts but the fact is that private companies have bidding for NHS contracts for the better part of a decade, and large chunks of the NHS was already privatised under Labour such as the cleaning and logistic section. Where were the complaints about privatisation then?

Google ISTCs, PFI hospitals and Connecting for Health for starters.

GridGirl

24th January 2011, 20:39

The Tories are going to alter the way private companies bid for contracts but the fact is that private companies have bidding for NHS contracts for the better part of a decade, and large chunks of the NHS was already privatised under Labour such as the cleaning and logistic section. Where were the complaints about privatisation then?

Google ISTCs, PFI hospitals and Connecting for Health for starters.

The area of the NHS that my mum works in was privatised some years ago after prolonged strike action. If it wasn't the longest strike in NHS history it was one of the longest. I can more than talk about privatisation, striking and ballots. Maybe people are more interested when it concerns them. Proposed NHS changes do affect alot more people hense more people now seeming to take issue with the part privatisation of the NHS.

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 20:45

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 20:52

The area of the NHS that my mum works in was privatised some years ago after prolonged strike action. If it wasn't the longest strike in NHS history it was one of the longest.

Strikers should be sacked immediately; scum of the earth to blackmail the nation into giving them more money, greedy *******s. Like these BA lot, utter scum hope they lose their jobs in the long run, that'll learn em

ArrowsFA1

24th January 2011, 20:55

Having worked in the NHS and watched Labour give private companies priority over the NHS when bidding for contracts I find accusations that the Tories are going to privatise the NHS rather rich I'm afraid.
Fair enough, you have direct experience of working in the NHS which I do not. I also think privatisation of the NHS has been creeping in over a long period of time and is not just a product of the current government.

That said, in May the Tories said they would put an end to "top-down reorganisations of the NHS" and yet we're now seeing what will be a massive and fundamental reorganisation of the service.

Bolton Midnight

24th January 2011, 20:59

yet we're now seeing what will be a massive and fundamental reorganisation of the service.

It needs it, it is way too top heavy. A local PCT was talking about shedding some workforce, worked out they were on over 80k per 15 months, now that ain't nurses and porters it'll be managers.

ArrowsFA1

24th January 2011, 21:12

It needs it...
You won't find many who would disagree. It's how the reorganisation is shaped, and how far it goes, that is the issue and there is widespread concern about the potential impact of the current proposals.

Daniel

24th January 2011, 21:30

The deals reduced or went away altogether once scrappage came along, even Labour acknowledge it wasn't such a great idea.

Car sales were still dire, being a bit less crap doesn't count as a success you know? How are new car sales like now, post scrappage? Not to mention the number of folk who bought new cars who can't afford new cars, then there's the environmental impact of scrapping perfectly good motor cars just so a bloke called Keith can buy some Aramis and some cuff links.

Think most small business left prices as they were so received a small boost to profits..

You really are a dingleberry of epic proportions.

The scrappage scheme was a success. Numerous dealerships were having to take people on and newer cars tend to get serviced more than older ones which the owners are happy to take risks with......

I certainly agree that the environmental impact (at least in the short term) wasn't good. A lot of perfectly good cars got scrapped although my 406 wasn't a particularly good example of its kind with a blown head gasket.....

How is scrappage a bad idea? By and large the amount of VAT gained outweighed the outlay from the government as has been shown plenty of times (though you seem wilfully ignorant of this fact!) and even though most components in our 500 were probably made outside of the UK, it still helped to give employment to sales people, transport companies and many other sectors....... Some of those jobs may have been temporary but some have been permanent. If there is a benefit (temporary or permanent, big or small) gained for little or no money then what is your problem other than the fact that it was Labour that came up with the idea?

Brown, Jon Brow

24th January 2011, 21:31

GridGirl

24th January 2011, 21:33

Strikers should be sacked immediately; scum of the earth to blackmail the nation into giving them more money, greedy *******s. Like these BA lot, utter scum hope they lose their jobs in the long run, that'll learn em

Excuse me, but where did I say that the NHS strike that my mum took part in in any way wage related? That said, try living on strike pay from the union of about £15 per day. It doesn't go very far.

BDunnell

24th January 2011, 21:47

How is scrappage a bad idea? By and large the amount of VAT gained outweighed the outlay from the government as has been shown plenty of times (though you seem wilfully ignorant of this fact!) and even though most components in our 500 were probably made outside of the UK, it still helped to give employment to sales people, transport companies and many other sectors.......

Indeed. I don't think the government could have been expected to force everyone to buy Morgans, Ginettas or other British-built cars, could it?

Malbec

25th January 2011, 07:09

It needs it, it is way too top heavy. A local PCT was talking about shedding some workforce, worked out they were on over 80k per 15 months, now that ain't nurses and porters it'll be managers.

The cuts to the PCTs are the one part of the Tory proposals that aren't going to work. Its aimed at the Daily Mail crowd who demand a cut in the number of managers, but these guys are doing essential work given the free-market principles the NHS is run on. They are the ones assessing the different treatment options on offer from different hospitals and working out which one offers the best deal. They are the ones negotiating with hospitals to see how new methods of treatment can be introduced and what price to pay for them.

The GPs are supposed to take over commissioning but they won't have time to do the additional negotiating and admin. They'll simply hire the managers the PCTs sacked (I know several GPs who are already negotiating with managers about this) to carry on their jobs for the GPs instead. Instead of eliminating bureaucracy the reforms will merely move it.

And this is the fundamental problem. Despite all this talk about being top heavy the vast bulk of the management increase in the NHS works on quality control and improvement and on implementing the free-market system within the NHS. Get rid of these managers and quality will drop and overall costs will rise. This is what politicians are too afraid to tell the electorate.

Bolton Midnight

25th January 2011, 09:49

I'd expect those receiving big money for doing feck all to kick up a storm about their gravy train being dis-railed, if they didn't I'd be more concerned.

To coin a phrase 'there's no money left'.

Dave B

25th January 2011, 09:56

Guys and Gals, don't feed him. He does this on every single thread.

This is true.

There are efficiency savings to be made, but you cannot fall into the trap of thinking that everybody in a management position or on decent money is a waste of space. The NHS, along with any large institution, would collapse without administrators and managers.

Right, let's sit back and wait for an ignorant diatrabe about outreach workers, equality legislation, and how you have to be a black disabled lesbian to get a job with the NHS.... :p

Bolton Midnight

25th January 2011, 10:10

Excuse me, but where did I say that the NHS strike that my mum took part in in any way wage related? That said, try living on strike pay from the union of about £15 per day. It doesn't go very far.

My apologises, were they striking for more work less pay / perks then? Be a bloody first if they were.

Strikers should be sacked esp those within the public sector, Maggie had the right idea of how to treat these blackmailing scum.

BDunnell

25th January 2011, 10:10

I'd expect those receiving big money for doing feck all to kick up a storm about their gravy train being dis-railed

De-railed. Is English your second language?

Bolton Midnight

25th January 2011, 10:12

The cuts to the PCTs are the one part of the Tory proposals that aren't going to work. Its aimed at the Daily Mail crowd who demand a cut in the number of managers, but these guys are doing essential work given the free-market principles the NHS is run on. They are the ones assessing the different treatment options on offer from different hospitals and working out which one offers the best deal. They are the ones negotiating with hospitals to see how new methods of treatment can be introduced and what price to pay for them.

The GPs are supposed to take over commissioning but they won't have time to do the additional negotiating and admin. They'll simply hire the managers the PCTs sacked (I know several GPs who are already negotiating with managers about this) to carry on their jobs for the GPs instead. Instead of eliminating bureaucracy the reforms will merely move it.

And this is the fundamental problem. Despite all this talk about being top heavy the vast bulk of the management increase in the NHS works on quality control and improvement and on implementing the free-market system within the NHS. Get rid of these managers and quality will drop and overall costs will rise. This is what politicians are too afraid to tell the electorate.

Utter pish, these people are mostly a waste of good air. I have to deal with quite a few of them and they are unfit for purpose. They'd not get work any where else other than the public sector. They think sick days are part and parcel of their job contract, feckless parasites.

If they were oh so essential how did the NHS manage pre 1997 without them?

Dave B

25th January 2011, 10:21

The cuts to the PCTs are the one part of the Tory proposals that aren't going to work. Its aimed at the Daily Mail crowd who demand a cut in the number of managers, but these guys are doing essential work given the free-market principles the NHS is run on. They are the ones assessing the different treatment options on offer from different hospitals and working out which one offers the best deal. They are the ones negotiating with hospitals to see how new methods of treatment can be introduced and what price to pay for them.

The GPs are supposed to take over commissioning but they won't have time to do the additional negotiating and admin. They'll simply hire the managers the PCTs sacked (I know several GPs who are already negotiating with managers about this) to carry on their jobs for the GPs instead. Instead of eliminating bureaucracy the reforms will merely move it..

My problem with the radical changes being introduced are that before the election we were explicitely promised that there would be no such re-organisation of the NHS, and yet the plans were unveiled within weeks of the coalition being formed.

This means that either (a) the plans were cobbled together without much thought or care, or (b) the Conservatives told a blatent lie.

Worse, the bill has only just been published but the changes are being pushed though before it's been properly debated - let alone voted on. In my local PCT the changeover is so far advanced that even if the bill were to be defeated the process is pretty much irreversable. This stinks of idealogical change rather than being driven by the needs of the patient.

GPs have two choices. Either manage their own commissioning, thereby spending less time with patients; or pay a private management company to do the same job as the PCT they replaced but at a profit.

Expect to hear the tabloids' staple phrase "postcode lottery" replace the other staple of "government interference" over the next few years.

Dave B

25th January 2011, 11:31

On a seperate note, it appears that the coalition's policies are depressing the economy and - as my bolding illustrates - it cannot entirely be blamed on the weather:

The UK economy shrunk by a shock 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010 as Britain's recovery from recession faltered.

Most of the unexpected contraction was caused by the wintry weather that gripped Britain last month, the Office for National Statistics said. Without it, GDP would probably have been flat – suggesting that the UK economy had already run out of steam before the snow hit the country.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/25/uk-economy-shrunk-point-five-per-cent

Or, as some people have a distrust of The Guardian :

George Osborne insisted that the Government will press ahead with planned cuts to public spending, despite warnings from forecasters that the economy may be too weak to withstand the package.

...

"This is a horrendous figure. An absolute disaster for the economy," said Hetal Mehta, an economist at Daiwa Capital Markets Europe.

"We knew that retail sales were heavily affected and that services output would be weak, but the collapse in construction was a major contributor the downside surprise."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8280664/UK-economy-shrinks-0.5pc.html

And this was all before the effects of the VAT increase bite. In fact, the looming increase may actually have helped last quarter as consumers and businesses brought forward purchases.

It's not working, is it?

ArrowsFA1

25th January 2011, 11:41

It's not working, is it?
No, but that doesn't matter. The important thing is that it's all Labour and the public sector's fault.

Dave B

25th January 2011, 11:45

Bolton Midnight

25th January 2011, 12:10

No no, the important thing is we're all in it together.

Unless you're a banker who isn't having his bonus taxed at a higher rate despite a promise to do so; or a foreign media tycoon looking to have a buyout rubber-stamped despite OFCOM recommending it be referred to the Competition Commission.

or public sector as they seem to think they are above cuts

What did Labour do re bank bonuses? Yep sweet f a and during the bail out was the ideal time to put in some kind of ceiling, so the coalition's hands are tied re penalising banker's bonuses, so yet again that is Labour's fault not the coalition's.

The only way to get folk spending is tax cuts and we can't have them until Labour's debts have been reduced, so massive cuts to public spending have to come first.

Can you follow this?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23848414-taxpayer-years--a-brilliant-way-to-explain-the-true-cost-of-government.do

yes or no?

Dave B

25th January 2011, 12:11

Overall, a terrible headline reading, probably exacerbated by the weather. Nonetheless, weak even without the weather and likely to reinforce our below-consensus growth forecast for this year.
Alan Clarke, UK economist at BNP Paribas

Sadly there seems to be little in the way of confidence that there will be a turnaround in the industry's prospects in 2011, and with the full effect of public sector cuts yet to feed through, there may very well be further bad news to come in future quarters.
Alasdair Reisner, Civil Engineering Contractors Association

While bad weather has had some impact, the sharp fall in activity should serve as a stark warning that growth and the recovery cannot be taken for granted. Manufacturing remains the one bright spot on the landscape clouded with uncertainty but there are widespread challenges at home and abroad that could still dent growth this year.
Jeegar Kakkad, EEF senior economist

Although heavily affected by the weather, the UK's shockingly bad Q4 GDP figures revealing a 0.5% quarterly drop will nonetheless raise serious concerns over whether the economy is in a strong enough position to withstand the coming fiscal tightening. The ONS estimates that weather effects knocked about 0.5% off GDP in Q4 so, even without the impact, the underlying growth picture is significantly weaker than expected.
Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist, Capital Economics

Strong demand from overseas markets such as Germany, China and the Middle East raises our hopes that UK exporters will have continued to help offset domestic weakness and revive the recovery, but the chances of a double-dip recession have surely increased.
Chris Williamson, chief economist, Markit

This is a horrendous figure. An absolute disaster for the economy.
Hetal Mehta, UK economist, Daiwa Capital Markets Europe

It is reasonable to expect that there will be a bounce back in growth in the first quarter of 2011 as some of December's lost activity to the weather is made up. However, this is likely to prove temporary as growth is likely to be increasingly pressurised by fiscal tightening increasingly kicking in, starting with the already enacted VAT hike from 17.5% to 20%
Howard Archer, chief European & UK economist, IHS Global Insight

Alongside weak growth, we now have the very real prospect that more money will be printed, which will further dilute Sterling. Stagflation is now a real and imminent threat.
Although the extreme weather conditions would certainly have contributed to the shock performance of the economy in Q4, the real reasons for its continued stagnation are far more fundamental.
Consumer spending and demand have been decimated by rising unemployment, rising living costs and the prospect that rates could rise sooner rather than later as inflation runs out of control.
Christina Weisz, a director of foreign exchange specialists, Currency Solutions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/25/uk-gdp-figures-what-the-analysts-say

:mad:

Dave B

25th January 2011, 12:15

Can you follow this?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23848414-taxpayer-years--a-brilliant-way-to-explain-the-true-cost-of-government.do

yes or no?
Yes. It's overly simplistic and deeply flawed. It fails to take into account, just for starters, the revenue brought to the exchequer by those notional employees when they spend their wages - the 20% VAT for example. The economy is a bit more complicated than I think you understand.

Retro Formula 1

25th January 2011, 12:21

You really are a dingleberry of epic proportions.

The scrappage scheme was a success. Numerous dealerships were having to take people on and newer cars tend to get serviced more than older ones which the owners are happy to take risks with......

I certainly agree that the environmental impact (at least in the short term) wasn't good. A lot of perfectly good cars got scrapped although my 406 wasn't a particularly good example of its kind with a blown head gasket.....

How is scrappage a bad idea? By and large the amount of VAT gained outweighed the outlay from the government as has been shown plenty of times (though you seem wilfully ignorant of this fact!) and even though most components in our 500 were probably made outside of the UK, it still helped to give employment to sales people, transport companies and many other sectors....... Some of those jobs may have been temporary but some have been permanent. If there is a benefit (temporary or permanent, big or small) gained for little or no money then what is your problem other than the fact that it was Labour that came up with the idea?

Daniel

You are avoiding the facts and posting the same nonsense time and time again. It doesn't change anything apart from making you look blinkered and ignorant to rational debate.

We both agree that the scrappage scheme paid for itself by the amount of VAT raised on the sale of new cars, yes?

51,000 were sold of which 46,000 were foreign imports, yes?

So, answer me the following points please.

1. How many new cars would have been sold to those people if the scrappage scheme wasn't in place? 10%? 20%? 30%?

2. Where is the VAT Tax revenue that these sales would have generated?

3. If we take the average amount of contribution to be a grand a car, how much of the £50M remained in the UK?

The car scrappage scheme was good for the people that bought new cars but as far as being this great job generator, it's all smoke and mirrorw. At best it artificially bolstered some existing jobs which will have gone now and as for all these new car salesman, what's happened to them?

No, my old Dingleberry, it was a smoke and mirrors stunt that on the surface hasn't cost anything, when you scratch the surface, it explains the mentality of a Government that spent, spent, spent until the country was basically bankrupt.

Oh yes, we can bang the Global Financial Crisis gong all we like but the sad fact is that apart from a few heavily subsidised European countries, the UK is at the top of the pile for debt.

At the moment, we owe a slither less than one Trillion pounds and if you take into account things like the pension liability bombshell (oh yes, we haven't even really considered that yet), then the figure is eye wateringly large. But even without this, for the first time since the early severnties, debt has passed 50% of our GDP and even with all the cuts so far, it's increasing.

So, in conclusion, we know you like the scrappage scheme but it wasn't a success but a distraction and although it propped up the car trade for a bit, it did so by shipping millions of pounds offland to foreign car makers.