I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
A degree say from a mediocre UK university isn't the 'equivalent qualification' that it was 30 years ago - London and other world class cities have a global labour market in which we compete with the best and brightest from everywhere.
How many foreigners worked in the City in the 1980s versus today?
What conclusion should I draw from your remarks, NYA? I'm not sure on this occasion.
I am asking why middle class people on decent incomes and relatively high level jobs seem to have a far worse standard of living than when I had such a job 23 years ago (and of course, people lower down the scales will be faring even worse). What has the influx of foreign talent got to do with that ? GDP more than doubled, living standards greatly reduced. Because of an influx of foreigners to the City? Is this a subtle pro-Brexit argument? :-)
The more I think about it, the more I see the UK property situation at the core of the cost of living problems for most people who don't earn obscene amounts in the City. And while no-one's heart should bleed, that includes people who work in top advertising agencies. Who'd have thought it would come to that?.
I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
What a crass thing to suggest - contradicted everything you said earlier. I am happy to pay a bit more but it won't work if it is just me and nobody else and you know it. It is clear you put higher earners and corporations paying a bit more tax as more imortant than educating our kids or NHS so why pretend otherwise or try to tell us everything is rosy - your posts on here make that clear.
I think everyone has made up their mind by now and is just waiting for the day to come and get it over with.
Would be interesting to hear from anyone who is still on the fence, if there are any. And what the last 24 hours or so have done to effect the way you plan to vote.
I genuinely don't know who I will vote for. I don't think any of the parties appeal. I'm reminded of a great political thinker who compared the parties to ugly girls in a club.
24 hours before the election and still haven't got a clue which way I will vote.
Labour is the obvious way - 5 more years of the Tories and our public services will collapse. But their proposals are unaffordable and how can you vote for Corbyn? And the thought of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary is a nightmare.
The Lib Dems? Their obsession with Europe turns me right off and Farron is a lightweight. And just seeing Clegg on TV makes me want to scream.
The Tories? Obviously the safe option but this campaign has really shown up May's limitations and how can you vote for a party that obviously wants to destroy the NHS?
We deserve so much better than this lot that I think I may just draw my own box on the voting slip saying none of the above.
Well seeing as we all know the Tories are going to win, your best protest vote will be to vote Labour and reduce their majority.
Depends where he lives - what's the point of voting Labour if say the Lib Dems are the main opposition?
I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
What a crass thing to suggest - contradicted everything you said earlier. I am happy to pay a bit more but it won't work if it is just me and nobody else and you know it. It is clear you put higher earners and corporations paying a bit more tax as more imortant than educating our kids or NHS so why pretend otherwise or try to tell us everything is rosy - your posts on here make that clear.
Utter tosh,
When you've done probably 10,000 voluntary hours in schools let me know. I may no longer be a governor but I still go into a school every other Friday in my own time to help children with their reading..... so yes, clearly I don't give a hoot about schools.
Do you give to charity or only when the government tell you? We can all make a difference in many ways, you don't need to wait to be told to do so.
We don't know the details but people on here said they thought she was unwell. I think her hair has been affected. I have dissed her on here but if she has been very ill just lately I regret that.
If she is genuinely ill (physically or mentally - and the effects can be one and the same) then she should never been put in that position by her boss for this long.
I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn teh lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
Isn't that just politics in this country for at least the last 20 years? Spin spin spin, all the parties to one extent or another do it and why I generally don't believe much of what they all say.
Re schools, sadly London & the south east will be hit hardest (and some other major cities) as the money is redistributed as they currently receive considerably more funding than many parts of the UK per head.
It's never reported of course but more schools will get additional funding than those that will lose, is that what you get from the reality of the tories?
I don't know what school your wife works mutley but I assume that the two not being replaced won't mean a class of children fending for themselves?
Many London schools if we take Primary have up to 25% more teachers than classes, compare that to other places in the U.K. Where schools struggle to have one teacher per class and those teachers often forgo their PPA time as there is no cover.
Of course in an ideal world we would have a fairer funding structure (which is what they are trying to do) and also more funding in general.
My wife's school isn't in London. Earlier this year 40 kids in our area were not given any choice of secondary school. Not you have to have this school and not your choices - they were told there were no places anywhere. Of course something will be found at some point, but it really isn't good and please , we understand you are bothered about paying more tax but don't try to tell us the NHS and schools are not in crisis when they clearly are!
And stop talking about an ideal world please - it is quite annoying when these basic improvements are achievable in our world if very rich people and corporations pay a bit more tax. I haven't got an issue paying more tax - I back myself to do better from a growing economy.
Around 9,000 schools will be worse off and 11,000 better off, as I said London & the SE will be hit hardest as well as some other major cities but so will schools elsewhere.
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
Ok, blame the heads for not being financially savy! Wetting myself with laughter here, but it is a serious Tory tactic - just deny things are bad and blame everybody else!
That's a bit rude to people like my mum who are very good at their job. They struggle to balance books year on year and year on year pressure is increased by the people above them as the budgets are squeezed.
Less money for books, less money for school trips, less money to hire quality calibre teachers.
@PragueAddick to answer your question on 'where does the money go?', in 2016:
Pensions £155bn Health £135bn Education £38bn Defence £45bn Welfare £58bn Law and Order £16bn Transport £18bn Local Govt £171bn Debt interest £45bn Other £80bn TOTAL £761bn
The above was financed by £691bn of tax receipts and the remainder obviously from borrowings.
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
One thing is certain. Should the conservatives win the election on Thursday which they probably will. Another term without serious changes in funding to the NHS, education and other areas of social expenditure then the fabric of this country will be ruined. What will they be able to tell us in four years from now when one by one those essential services start to fall over.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
A degree say from a mediocre UK university isn't the 'equivalent qualification' that it was 30 years ago - London and other world class cities have a global labour market in which we compete with the best and brightest from everywhere.
How many foreigners worked in the City in the 1980s versus today?
What conclusion should I draw from your remarks, NYA? I'm not sure on this occasion.
I am asking why middle class people on decent incomes and relatively high level jobs seem to have a far worse standard of living than when I had such a job 23 years ago (and of course, people lower down the scales will be faring even worse). What has the influx of foreign talent got to do with that ? GDP more than doubled, living standards greatly reduced. Because of an influx of foreigners to the City? Is this a subtle pro-Brexit argument? :-)
The more I think about it, the more I see the UK property situation at the core of the cost of living problems for most people who don't earn obscene amounts in the City. And while no-one's heart should bleed, that includes people who work in top advertising agencies. Who'd have thought it would come to that?.
Quite simply because the world is different today due (in this context) largely to globalisation - even a highly educated UK individual is applying for jobs in competition with the best from across Europe and the world.
Since London is obviously a highly attractive place to live and work, the cost of living reflects this and is moreover not significantly different (even lower) than the likes of NYC, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Tokyo etc.
I don't know the world of advertising well, but from a high level I'm not sure why someone working in that particular industry should necessarily justify a very high standard of living (unless they are equity owners).
It's not an especially scaleable business model unlike say finance, sport or technology (presumably they just get paid on a retained or project-by-project basis?), and it's not one that typically encourages a 'star culture' where the best can demand huge remuneration (remembering the old adage that half of the advertising spending works but no-one knows which half).
Comments
Do you think it's fair that schools a couple of miles apart with the same salary scales, number of pupils etc can receive a 10% or more disparity in funding between them? The current way of calculating funding is ridiculous and needs changing.
I managed a £3m+ school budget for over ten years. I was asked by a neighbouring borough to help a couple of their schools who had got into difficulty and I was amazed that their funding per pupil was considerably less than the school where I was simply because of the postcode/borough, it's utterly unfair but lets not worry about that heh, lets just jump on the bandwagon rather than try to solve the problems.
I don't agree using the word 'crisis' for schools currently. In my area at the time (Lewisham borough but equally applied to neighbouring boroughs) the crisis was the numbers of pupils coming in. Almost every primary school in Lewisham now has an extra intake class and has done so since around 2007/8. I can't remember the exact year, think it was 2006, but Lewisham initially had 900 children entering primary school without a place, we had to put up temporary classrooms in numerous schools (or playgrounds actually) to cater for those extra numbers. You can make your own mind up why that situation arose.
The sheer financial wastage in schools is in my experience huge, why don't you speak to your local council and put your name down to be a school governor, I think once you delve under the surface you'll be shocked. Such as building repairs that will cost 5x what they should do. Get involved and help make a difference.
Mutley, if you look back at my posts in this thread I've said numerous times I'm more than happy to pay more tax if it goes to areas like Education, the NHS etc etc, over the past 7 years I've done so and paid as a % of my income more tax and been happy to do so. I said earlier in this thread I actually liked the lib dems proposal of 1p tax extra across the board specifically for this.
Look at the countries people here hold up as model one's - you'll find the higher earners don't really pay any or much more there than they do here, but the lower earning employee's pay considerably more. There seems to have become this mantra over this election that somehow over the last 7 years the more wealthy have had tax cuts to the detriment of the less wealthy when the actual reality is the complete opposite.
Lastly, if you don't have an issue paying more and want to don't wait for the government to take it from you, set up a standing order to your local school, college, NHS trust etc. If you can do so ro a charitable organisation the government will contribute some tax
I am asking why middle class people on decent incomes and relatively high level jobs seem to have a far worse standard of living than when I had such a job 23 years ago (and of course, people lower down the scales will be faring even worse). What has the influx of foreign talent got to do with that ? GDP more than doubled, living standards greatly reduced. Because of an influx of foreigners to the City? Is this a subtle pro-Brexit argument? :-)
The more I think about it, the more I see the UK property situation at the core of the cost of living problems for most people who don't earn obscene amounts in the City. And while no-one's heart should bleed, that includes people who work in top advertising agencies. Who'd have thought it would come to that?.
@Rob7Lee can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that over 50% of schools will receive an increase in funding. This website https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/ would disagree with that analysis, their sources of data seem OK as well https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/method .
When you've done probably 10,000 voluntary hours in schools let me know. I may no longer be a governor but I still go into a school every other Friday in my own time to help children with their reading..... so yes, clearly I don't give a hoot about schools.
Do you give to charity or only when the government tell you? We can all make a difference in many ways, you don't need to wait to be told to do so.
What I do take exception to are the total smears that come exclusively from just one or two of the usual suspects.
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
I wonder if the Tories will drop Boris now?
Less money for books, less money for school trips, less money to hire quality calibre teachers.
Pensions £155bn
Health £135bn
Education £38bn
Defence £45bn
Welfare £58bn
Law and Order £16bn
Transport £18bn
Local Govt £171bn
Debt interest £45bn
Other £80bn
TOTAL £761bn
The above was financed by £691bn of tax receipts and the remainder obviously from borrowings.
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
Since London is obviously a highly attractive place to live and work, the cost of living reflects this and is moreover not significantly different (even lower) than the likes of NYC, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Tokyo etc.
I don't know the world of advertising well, but from a high level I'm not sure why someone working in that particular industry should necessarily justify a very high standard of living (unless they are equity owners).
It's not an especially scaleable business model unlike say finance, sport or technology (presumably they just get paid on a retained or project-by-project basis?), and it's not one that typically encourages a 'star culture' where the best can demand huge remuneration (remembering the old adage that half of the advertising spending works but no-one knows which half).