The Next Conservative Budget

[rovermorris999]

FredClogs said:

It occurs to me that all those qualifications are eminently more practical and geared towards work and earning money than some of the more traditional academic subjects i.e PPE, Classics, Philosophy or Law.

Seems to me that the hatred of commoners being educated, the Pol Potian Daily Mail frothing at the mouth at the thought of someone from a working class background being taught how to think is the real objection for some.

Do you want vinegar with those chips on your shoulders? The old grammar school/full-grant university route served many from a working-class background well. The difference to now is that you had to be academically able and thus take full advantage of what was on offer.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

turbobloke said:

Eric Mc, predictably. Mentioning The Guardian might have been more apt, there are lots of media jobs that the flood of Media Studies grads can apply for and mostly not get.

It's odd that some think there's a secret garden relating to carp degrees.

TB - you are always the one who bridles at "personal" jibes. Let he who is without sin etc etc.

If only there was a jibe, you would have a point.

Somebody asked a question, who mentioned the Daily Mail, and I answered it accurately, you did, you mentioned the Daily Mail!

Based on involvement in other threads with mentions of the Mail, it was also predictable. I'd have said the same for a few other PHers.

Even so your baseless personal angle did prompt use of the new PH Search facility to see if you had a point on the use of 'predicability' but you don't.

In another thread Eric Mc said:

The DM is generally right of centre - but its main problem is inaccuracy.

In another thread Eric Mc said:

I wonder does the DM not see any irony in this news story and the part they play in riling people against various sectors of the community?

In another thread Eric Mc said:

Ah yes, the good old DM, the bastion of neutrality, fairness and accuracy.

In another thread Eric Mc said:

Yes - it's quite rare for the DM to express an opinion.

Etc with thanks to the new Search feature. Case dismissed

[Eric Mc]

Why drag me into the discussion anyway? You often make a point of accusing others of attacking the person rather than the point. Yet you do it yourself.

I find engaging with you on this forum immensely infuriating.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

Why drag me into the discussion anyway?

Weird! You posted in the discussion, no dragging needed.

Eric Mc said:

You often make a point of accusing others of attacking the person rather than the point. Yet you do it yourself.

Not so. In answer to a question I said you mentioned the DM and you did, and that it was predictable when it was, so slinging your toys out of the pram is pointless and changes nothing.

Eric Mc said:

I find engaging with you on this forum immensely infuriating.

Presumably because you get proved wrong time and time again.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

esxste said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is deciding what subjects are "bullst".

Would academic topics such as English Literature or History of Art or Astrophysics or Theology be included in your "bullst" category.

In your world would only down to earth practical subjects like Medicine, Business Management, Accountancy, Engineering etc be tolerated?

Who decides what's a nonsense subject and who decides what's a worthwhile one?

Do you even know what Astrophysics is, and how essential it is to the British economy? Or the History of Art... how will Museums run without experts in that? Theology can go the way of the dinosaurs though.

I think I DO know what Astrophysics is.

I too think you do. We agree!!!!!

[IroningMan]

rover 623gsi said:

otolith said:

Just seen this - I must admit, I had no idea that tax credits and child benefit were quite so generous, I didn't realise that a minimum wage earner with two kids was on the same take-home as a single person on £24250.

another way of looking at that is that in one example there are four people living on £24,250 and in the other example there is one person living on £24,250

the idea behind tax credits was that it would encourage people in the example given to at least take the full-time minimum wage job rather than do nothing.

I think the tax credit system was/is messy and over-complicated and some reform was needed, but there are a lot of families that are going to really, really struggle without it.

Another way of looking at it is that in a third example there is a family of four with a single wage earner pulling-in £24,250...

And why are families going to 'really, really struggle' without tax credits when the numbers above show that their incomes will be affected very little? Are the numbers wrong?

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Good question. There are so many noddy degrees it's difficult to decide which is the worst, including Celebrity Journalism. It's personal choice time.

Baking Technology Management
Circus Physical Performance
Applied Golf Management
Equestrian Psychology
Festivals Sustainability Management
Comedy Practices

It occurs to me that all those qualifications are eminently more practical and geared towards work and earning money than some of the more traditional academic subjects i.e PPE, Classics, Philosophy or Law.

Seems to me that the hatred of commoners being educated, the Pol Potian Daily Mail frothing at the mouth at the thought of someone from a working class background being taught how to think is the real objection for some.

Several of them look more like training than education (in the sense in which we value a degree as an education regardless of subject matter).

I agree. The argument has arisen because of the idea that doing a 4 year degree in "golf course design" is somehow a waste of a young persons life and tax payers money. If the argument is that bachelor's degrees are an outdated concept and people should be "trained" for work and bachelors should be trained for a life of drunken pontification (i.e politics) then I would also agree - Take Boris Johnston for example (I'm not saying he's a drunk).

But I think the motivation behind those that decry the current state of higher education is a general disappointment in the fact that poor people are obtaining the same qualifications (in name) as the privileged.

[arp1]

Pooh said:

arp1 said:

Pooh said:

arp1 said:

Ok private sector-ers, what has been your annual wage increase? Bet it was more than 1%, and that was with you still doing the same job role

I work in the oil industry and our company has laid off about 30% of the workforce, I have had a pay cut and my pension is far less generous than the public sector get so I have no sympathy at all.

Whilst I do have sympathy for what the oil industry is going through, you are still more likely on a far better salary than those in the public sector. And traditionally that is why public service pensions were slightly better than private due to the wage disparity. In my sector we are not the highest paid but I enjoy my career so stick with it, but we can all moan about it, everyone does. When I worked in the private sector I recall getting an annual wage increase of whatever %/£. The government is a joke, it had not given the country s wage rise, just the rich getting richer and England voted for the Tories and that's what got in, so cheers.

I get paid more than some public sector people and lees than others, the reason I am well paid and still have a job is that I worked my ass off in a harsh environment for over 25 years and have a lot of valuable knowledge and experience. You should remember that your pay and pension are paid for entirely by public money and, on average, you get better pay and a more generous pension than the people whose taxes are paying for your wages and pension. You are lucky to be getting any sort of annual pay rise.

Everyone pays for everyone else's pay and pension in some shape or form so don't give me that twaddle! You pay your own as well the same as I do.

[GT03ROB]

FredClogs said:

Esseesse said:

The answer is to reduce the number of people at university. Fully fund a set number of places on regarded courses in the things that we need in the UK. Anyone who doesn't land one of these places has to bear the full cost, if they need a loan it should be their business to arrange.

Here, here, I'd go further, I'd say let's stop educating people all together, why stop at withdrawing education post 18, why not say make all secondary school places fee paying? Then only the truly bright (rich) will get the best education and those not capable of learning can do non skilled work, like taking smack and robbing old grannies.

But whats the point in fully funding every Tom, Dick & Harry through University only for them to end up doing non-skilled work because the number of jobs truly requiring a degree are not there. I was fully funded, but less than 5% at my comprehensive went to university....the figure now? Far far higher. Are kids brighter...No. Are there more opportunities for graduates...No. So why should we as a country fund more than we need?

[Eric Mc]

turbobloke said:

Presumably because you get proved wrong time and time again.

No. I don't mind being wrong. I just don't care for your style or debating techniques.

[Eric Mc]

GT03ROB said:

FredClogs said:

Esseesse said:

The answer is to reduce the number of people at university. Fully fund a set number of places on regarded courses in the things that we need in the UK. Anyone who doesn't land one of these places has to bear the full cost, if they need a loan it should be their business to arrange.

Here, here, I'd go further, I'd say let's stop educating people all together, why stop at withdrawing education post 18, why not say make all secondary school places fee paying? Then only the truly bright (rich) will get the best education and those not capable of learning can do non skilled work, like taking smack and robbing old grannies.

But whats the point in fully funding every Tom, Dick & Harry through University only for them to end up doing non-skilled work because the number of jobs truly requiring a degree are not there. I was fully funded, but less than 5% at my comprehensive went to university....the figure now? Far far higher. Are kids brighter...No. Are there more opportunities for graduates...No. So why should we as a country fund more than we need?

Are people being "fully funded"?

[FredClogs]

GT03ROB said:

But whats the point in fully funding every Tom, Dick & Harry through University only for them to end up doing non-skilled work because the number of jobs truly requiring a degree are not there. I was fully funded, but less than 5% at my comprehensive went to university....the figure now? Far far higher. Are kids brighter...No. Are there more opportunities for graduates...No. So why should we as a country fund more than we need?

I'd disagree, I think 21 year olds are probably a lot "brighter" than they were in the 70s and 80s, they certainly have better dress sense. And the nature of the way the workplace has changed means there are really only "career" opportunities for graduates. Even the much lauded apprenticeships etc... (which I think are good) culminate in the young person achieving a degree or HND or some other higher qualification they could have achieved academically.

[RAFsmoggy]

Not much debate about the Budget, people trying to point score & getting at each other.

Its as though some people want to smother any point of view that differs from their own, very bland & boring.

[IroningMan]

FredClogs said:

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Good question. There are so many noddy degrees it's difficult to decide which is the worst, including Celebrity Journalism. It's personal choice time.

Baking Technology Management
Circus Physical Performance
Applied Golf Management
Equestrian Psychology
Festivals Sustainability Management
Comedy Practices

It occurs to me that all those qualifications are eminently more practical and geared towards work and earning money than some of the more traditional academic subjects i.e PPE, Classics, Philosophy or Law.

Seems to me that the hatred of commoners being educated, the Pol Potian Daily Mail frothing at the mouth at the thought of someone from a working class background being taught how to think is the real objection for some.

Several of them look more like training than education (in the sense in which we value a degree as an education regardless of subject matter).

I agree. The argument has arisen because of the idea that doing a 4 year degree in "golf course design" is somehow a waste of a young persons life and tax payers money. If the argument is that bachelor's degrees are an outdated concept and people should be "trained" for work and bachelors should be trained for a life of drunken pontification (i.e politics) then I would also agree - Take Boris Johnston for example (I'm not saying he's a drunk).

But I think the motivation behind those that decry the current state of higher education is a general disappointment in the fact that poor people are obtaining the same qualifications (in name) as the privileged.

You were making aery valid point until you came down with a bad case of the Trots at the end there.

What makes you think that only poor people do Media Studies? And who are 'the privileged' in this context?

[Eric Mc]

RAFsmoggy said:

Not much debate about the Budget, people trying to point score & getting at each other.

Its as though some people want to smother any point of view that differs from their own, very bland & boring.

100% agree. It all gets a bit tedious. It's what tends to happen in the "news" forum. There are better and more practical discussions on various aspects of yesterday's budget in the Business and Finance forums.

[nightcruiser]

No mention of the Help to buy ISAs. Will this still be going ahead?

[simoid]

IroningMan said:

rover 623gsi said:

otolith said:

Just seen this - I must admit, I had no idea that tax credits and child benefit were quite so generous, I didn't realise that a minimum wage earner with two kids was on the same take-home as a single person on £24250.

another way of looking at that is that in one example there are four people living on £24,250 and in the other example there is one person living on £24,250

the idea behind tax credits was that it would encourage people in the example given to at least take the full-time minimum wage job rather than do nothing.

I think the tax credit system was/is messy and over-complicated and some reform was needed, but there are a lot of families that are going to really, really struggle without it.

Another way of looking at it is that in a third example there is a family of four with a single wage earner pulling-in £24,250...

And why are families going to 'really, really struggle' without tax credits when the numbers above show that their incomes will be affected very little? Are the numbers wrong?

Very little? It looks to me like they're losing £1200 from an income of c. £19k. A fair amount. And in the third column, they're still slightly worse off nominally, so likely a noticeable amount after inflation is taken into account.

[Pooh]

arp1 said:

Everyone pays for everyone else's pay and pension in some shape or form so don't give me that twaddle! You pay your own as well the same as I do.

No they don't.
You get paid by the government and give some of it back to fund your pension, the net gain to the government is nil therefore all the costs associated with you, pay pension etc. are funded by the government from tax receipts, borrowing etc.

[Rovinghawk]

Eric Mc said:

I don't mind being wrong.

That's fortunate.

[TankRizzo]

menousername said:

sheeple

Generally, I find whenever some tinfoiler is throwing around stuff like this, they're usually very conformist in their lives and hold down normal, boring jobs and do exactly the same things as everyone else, but sit in their bedroom at night furiously typing away about "the Man" and "the government" and how everyone are sheep.