Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
Sorry? So why is the Tory manifesto uncosted? Why not criticise them for a manifesto that thwy haven't the nerve (or the wit) to price? Criticise Labour, but in this case tge Yories are even more culpable.
Because they don't have a scooby too what it will cost or how the economy is going to move post Brexit. If the economy can't fund the spending, a government has to take decisions - set priorities, cut spending, tax or borrow.
If May thought she could get away with not having to pretend she knew where we are heading, and making promises just to meet voters' expectations to be bribed, I guess she was wrong.
Do you think just because Corbyn got a maths student to cobble up some figures to show the policies had been costed, that the leadership didn't even bother to jot down, they are worth anything more than yesterdays' chip paper?
Parties decide what they want to promise, then make the assumptions to make the figures add up. Just because you can magic up costs doesn't mean you can magic up the money to match what you actually have to spend.
Yes but it applies to both.
The game is to try and present the figures to win votes as if you believe them, Corbyn and Abbott didn't do a good job.
The only figures on the Tory manifesto are the page No.s.
See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
Does that 11bn include the fact he wants to ditch the fees from September onwards? Unlikely I'd say.
Also just seen he's wanting to scrap the 30bn of student fee debt already owed. Wonder if that's coming from his money tree as well?
The £30bn is money already loaned - so the cost is the loss of income from the loan repayments - estimated I believe at about £2bn a year.
He needs to get in there quick as this government is at an advanced stage in selling off the Student Loan Book to the private sector.
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
Sorry? So why is the Tory manifesto uncosted? Why not criticise them for a manifesto that thwy haven't the nerve (or the wit) to price? Criticise Labour, but in this case tge Yories are even more culpable.
Because they don't have a scooby too what it will cost or how the economy is going to move post Brexit. If the economy can't fund the spending, a government has to take decisions - set priorities, cut spending, tax or borrow.
If May thought she could get away with not having to pretend she knew where we are heading, and making promises just to meet voters' expectations to be bribed, I guess she was wrong.
Do you think just because Corbyn got a maths student to cobble up some figures to show the policies had been costed, that the leadership didn't even bother to jot down, they are worth anything more than yesterdays' chip paper?
Parties decide what they want to promise, then make the assumptions to make the figures add up. Just because you can magic up costs doesn't mean you can magic up the money to match what you actually have to spend.
Yes but it applies to both.
The game is to try and present the figures to win votes as if you believe them, Corbyn and Abbott didn't do a good job.
The only figures on the Tory manifesto are the page No.s.
And that's only because someone inadvertently uncovered the deliberately covered number keys on the keyboard.
As Mother Theresa shouted "We don't needs numbers - there are no numerals in 'Strong and Stable'."
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
7% of the population are privately educated.
25% of medical/dental students come from private education.
74% of judges and 71% of QCs went to private schools. Private sector - nationally, 32% of partners attended private school, with this figure rising to 41% when London firms are looked at in isolation. In the magic circle it’s 50% (Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May).
Meritocracy my arse.
Sorry that's not the point Prague made unless I totally misinterpreted it - he was implying (I think) that you need a good degree to get into the big advertising firms but once in, progression is a function of ability alone.
Ignoring the whole equality of opportunity issue, the reason the percentages are so high (now that you've mentioned them) is that the lucky 7% who go through the private system represent perhaps 50% of the brightest/best educated kids in the country at 18 (hence why Oxbridge take roughly half their intake from here). It's these kids who invariably go on to great careers in medicine, law etc.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
7% of the population are privately educated.
25% of medical/dental students come from private education.
74% of judges and 71% of QCs went to private schools. Private sector - nationally, 32% of partners attended private school, with this figure rising to 41% when London firms are looked at in isolation. In the magic circle it’s 50% (Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May).
Meritocracy my arse.
Sorry that's not the point Prague made unless I totally misinterpreted it - he was implying (I think) that you need a good degree to get into the big advertising firms but once in, progression is a function of ability alone.
Ignoring the whole equality of opportunity issue, the reason the percentages are so high (now that you've mentioned them) is that the lucky 7% who go through the private system represent perhaps 50% of the brightest/best educated kids in the country at 18 (hence why Oxbridge take roughly half their intake from here). It's these kids who invariably go on to great careers in medicine, law etc.
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
Source: CHAIN, Jun 2016.
I'd be prepared to bet that a significant proportion of the Europeans would, in fact, be Irish and often relatively old.
It is a recognised feature of the emigrant experience that not all will find the streets paved with gold (even if they have employment) and, over time, as their wider immigrant cohort becomes more assimilated with the host nation, fail to move their lives on.
Single men, still living in middle age as they did when they were in their 20s, without savings or their own homes are quite vulnerable and, often, afraid to go home to where they may no longer know many people or where they fear being seen as failures.
The Irish government and charities (like the Aisling Project) have over the last few decades worked hard to bring back emigrants (even for brief holidays) who have not done so well.
The Irish element can only be a maximum of 10% as 37% were clearly outlined as being from countries that joined the EU only after 2004. In practice of course it will be much less.
Anyhow the conclusion one might draw is that it's hard to blame the 'Tory cuts' if we have thousands of Eastern European immigrants arriving without a job and nowhere to live.
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
I might suggest that, should you ever find yourself in A&E in need of assistance, your opinion might change.
Many consultants, for example, operating in the private sector have received much of their training and experience and, in many cases, continue to work in the NHS.
I would not dream of suggesting that the motivation in the medical private sector is additional income and/or work life balance, rather than any meritocratic notions...
This may be the election where their ability to buy rhe votes of ordinary people - rich and poor - has run out. It feels like something great is happening.
I work in law and it's very public school and Oxbridge dominated. And it becomes self fulfilling as people recruit in their own image and "only Oxbridge can do the job" because the mantra. It's horseshit. The case for a diverse workforce in terms of race, gender and background can be settled with economics alone. Every other industry figured this out in the 80s, law has only just realised it. Patent law, where I work is still in the dark ages and only just beginning to budge.
I work in law and it's very public school and Oxbridge dominated. And it becomes self fulfilling as people recruit in their own image and "only Oxbridge can do the job" because the mantra. It's horseshit. The case for a diverse workforce in terms of race, gender and background can be settled with economics alone. Every other industry figured this out in the 80s, law has only just realised it. Patent law, where I work is still in the dark ages and only just beginning to budge.
The answer is to get more state school educated kids into Oxbridge (on merit) rather than to cease recruiting from the best universities in the country.
However I suspect you're implying that they only recruit similarly privately-educated Oxbridge students which is a different problem.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
I might suggest that, should you ever find yourself in A&E in need of assistance, your opinion might change.
Many consultants, for example, operating in the private sector have received much of their training and experience and, in many cases, continue to work in the NHS.
I would not dream of suggesting that the motivation in the medical private sector is additional income and/or work life balance, rather than any meritocratic notions...
When I have had the misfortune of being in A&E, I'm usually attended to by a junior doctor straight out of medical school in the first instance.
By the time I've reflected during the five hours waiting for an experienced consultant to appear, I've usually decided I'm not as injured or ill as I first feared :-)
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
Would they be the only party to make manifesto pledges in order to win votes from a group of the electorate?
I work in law and it's very public school and Oxbridge dominated. And it becomes self fulfilling as people recruit in their own image and "only Oxbridge can do the job" because the mantra. It's horseshit. The case for a diverse workforce in terms of race, gender and background can be settled with economics alone. Every other industry figured this out in the 80s, law has only just realised it. Patent law, where I work is still in the dark ages and only just beginning to budge.
The answer is to get more state school educated kids into Oxbridge (on merit) rather than to cease recruiting from the best universities in the country.
However I suspect you're implying that they only recruit similarly privately-educated Oxbridge students which is a different problem.
You are right that's what happens often (depends on the firm of course)
In terms of your first point, Oxford and Cambridge aren't bad at trying to recruit people from diverse backgrounds but it isn't perfect. And also there are lots of reasons why similarly talented people dont go there, for example they have to live at home, or they don't fit (or think they fit) into the culture. You have to recruit on merit of course, but some employers just use the Oxbridge badge as a proxy for quality. I've met some brilliant patent attorneys who went to Oxbridge. Others make Rain Man seem like James Brown. Being highly intelligent isn't everything.
Some massive employers university blind applications, as well as name and gender blinding them. Makes a difference at least to the initial screening process!
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
Definite contender for 'least informed comment of the thread' award.
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
Not many under 25's have school meals or free nursery places, and if they do I would humbly suggest that they are too young to vote. Seriously its a bit of an insult to 20-25 year olds as well, my son and most of his mates are working their collective arses off to try and get enough deposit dough together to get on the housing ladder, and only then they can just afford shared ownership, I would say that that is a bloody life experience that you and me never had to deal with, and who has presided over the housing debacle...oh yes the bloody Tories, same as the absolute fuck up they made of it in the late 80's and early 90's, there appears to be a patten emerging ..........
Well said Greenie. My mortgage is paid off - I shouldn't care, but our children matter. Their future's matter. My son is 16 and can't vote, but I will be voting for him!
I work in law and it's very public school and Oxbridge dominated. And it becomes self fulfilling as people recruit in their own image and "only Oxbridge can do the job" because the mantra. It's horseshit. The case for a diverse workforce in terms of race, gender and background can be settled with economics alone. Every other industry figured this out in the 80s, law has only just realised it. Patent law, where I work is still in the dark ages and only just beginning to budge.
The answer is to get more state school educated kids into Oxbridge (on merit) rather than to cease recruiting from the best universities in the country.
However I suspect you're implying that they only recruit similarly privately-educated Oxbridge students which is a different problem.
You are right that's what happens often (depends on the firm of course)
In terms of your first point, Oxford and Cambridge aren't bad at trying to recruit people from diverse backgrounds but it isn't perfect. And also there are lots of reasons why similarly talented people dont go there, for example they have to live at home, or they don't fit (or think they fit) into the culture. You have to recruit on merit of course, but some employers just use the Oxbridge badge as a proxy for quality. I've met some brilliant patent attorneys who went to Oxbridge. Others make Rain Man seem like James Brown. Being highly intelligent isn't everything.
Some massive employers university blind applications, as well as name and gender blinding them. Makes a difference at least to the initial screening process!
I agree with all of that but we would all lose out if the best universities started to lower their entry requirements. The 'culture' argument is a bit of a daft reason to turn down a world class education although I am sure it exists.
The blind employment screening makes a lot of sense when trying to reduce irrational discrimination by gender/school/race/looks etc. but I'm not sure blind screening by university makes much sense (there's usually a reason why employers want Oxbridge over say University of East London, with all due respect to that fine seat of learning).
The latest I have heard is that Labour want to clear student debts currently incurred by graduates but I need to check on the details.... Is this the case?
Nobody cleared mine - why do people get a free pass to get their debts cleared rather than do what everyone else has to do which is go to work? It was my choice to go to uni and I don't expect the taxpayer to cover my bill at the end of it
Just another gimmick to try & get the under 25's to vote for them. Like free tuition fees, more bank holidays, free schools meals, free nursery places etc etc. They haven't had the life experiences that the over 40's have had & don't know what its like living in the real world.
I'm not even under 25 and I find this comment ridiculous.
Maybe you don't know what the real world feels like? Maybe your experiences whether better or worse differ to another 40+ year old. Maybe you're an individual just like everyone else on this planet.
Please list out what you think these extra 'experiences' are? Genuinely I am interested to know what triggered your disgustingly ageist comment.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
7% of the population are privately educated.
25% of medical/dental students come from private education.
74% of judges and 71% of QCs went to private schools. Private sector - nationally, 32% of partners attended private school, with this figure rising to 41% when London firms are looked at in isolation. In the magic circle it’s 50% (Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May).
Meritocracy my arse.
Sorry that's not the point Prague made unless I totally misinterpreted it - he was implying (I think) that you need a good degree to get into the big advertising firms but once in, progression is a function of ability alone.
Ignoring the whole equality of opportunity issue, the reason the percentages are so high (now that you've mentioned them) is that the lucky 7% who go through the private system represent perhaps 50% of the brightest/best educated kids in the country at 18 (hence why Oxbridge take roughly half their intake from here). It's these kids who invariably go on to great careers in medicine, law etc.
Yes, @newyorkaddick that was my point, although I made it to point out that they have tightened up their entry criteria for young people compared with 25 years ago.
Once in, you can progress as fast as your ability to succeed takes you, whereas the "clients" on the other side of the table will have to progress more sedately. But it does seem to me that on both sides, the emphasis on good academic qualifications is stronger than in my day. Which is why it's important that talented kids have access to good education, because what an ad agency still won't mind about is whether you have a strong accent or don't know which way to pass the port.
Comments
As Mother Theresa shouted "We don't needs numbers - there are no numerals in 'Strong and Stable'."
Ignoring the whole equality of opportunity issue, the reason the percentages are so high (now that you've mentioned them) is that the lucky 7% who go through the private system represent perhaps 50% of the brightest/best educated kids in the country at 18 (hence why Oxbridge take roughly half their intake from here). It's these kids who invariably go on to great careers in medicine, law etc.
3.7m donated to the Tories in 6 days.
Anyhow the conclusion one might draw is that it's hard to blame the 'Tory cuts' if we have thousands of Eastern European immigrants arriving without a job and nowhere to live.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/rough-sleeping-rise-london-homelessness-every-day-struggle
Many consultants, for example, operating in the private sector have received much of their training and experience and, in many cases, continue to work in the NHS.
I would not dream of suggesting that the motivation in the medical private sector is additional income and/or work life balance, rather than any meritocratic notions...
*mic drop*
However I suspect you're implying that they only recruit similarly privately-educated Oxbridge students which is a different problem.
By the time I've reflected during the five hours waiting for an experienced consultant to appear, I've usually decided I'm not as injured or ill as I first feared :-)
In terms of your first point, Oxford and Cambridge aren't bad at trying to recruit people from diverse backgrounds but it isn't perfect. And also there are lots of reasons why similarly talented people dont go there, for example they have to live at home, or they don't fit (or think they fit) into the culture. You have to recruit on merit of course, but some employers just use the Oxbridge badge as a proxy for quality. I've met some brilliant patent attorneys who went to Oxbridge. Others make Rain Man seem like James Brown. Being highly intelligent isn't everything.
Some massive employers university blind applications, as well as name and gender blinding them. Makes a difference at least to the initial screening process!
Seriously its a bit of an insult to 20-25 year olds as well, my son and most of his mates are working their collective arses off to try and get enough deposit dough together to get on the housing ladder, and only then they can just afford shared ownership, I would say that that is a bloody life experience that you and me never had to deal with, and who has presided over the housing debacle...oh yes the bloody Tories, same as the absolute fuck up they made of it in the late 80's and early 90's, there appears to be a patten emerging ..........
The blind employment screening makes a lot of sense when trying to reduce irrational discrimination by gender/school/race/looks etc. but I'm not sure blind screening by university makes much sense (there's usually a reason why employers want Oxbridge over say University of East London, with all due respect to that fine seat of learning).
Maybe you don't know what the real world feels like? Maybe your experiences whether better or worse differ to another 40+ year old. Maybe you're an individual just like everyone else on this planet.
Please list out what you think these extra 'experiences' are? Genuinely I am interested to know what triggered your disgustingly ageist comment.
Once in, you can progress as fast as your ability to succeed takes you, whereas the "clients" on the other side of the table will have to progress more sedately. But it does seem to me that on both sides, the emphasis on good academic qualifications is stronger than in my day. Which is why it's important that talented kids have access to good education, because what an ad agency still won't mind about is whether you have a strong accent or don't know which way to pass the port.