The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Or we could fix the economy.

Just a thought.

[Old Tankie]

Perhaps that's what the Government's in the process of doing.  A bit of pain before the gain!!  What do you think?

[The Legendary Shark]

I think the government should print its own money instead of borrowing privately printed (and owned) money.

[House of Usher]

Alternatively, we could just continue paying people for doing nothing!!  Oh, silly me, we're doing that already!!

Why don't we carry on doing that, and pay still more to keep them busy? We could make them run laps of the block, or dig holes and then fill them back in again. That's what I want to see my taxes used for. Thanks, Iain Duncan Smith, for that.

[Peter Wolf]

In this economic climate its a little bit unfair to say or think that everyone who is unemployed is unemployed out of choice and a layabout.

It also doesnt wash to make a big deal out of paying for the unemployed to do nothing out if your taxes or if you do then make sure you complain and protest about all the other ways that cash is scammed off you the taxpayer unless your intelligence level is similar to a tabloid.

Bash the unemployed - bash the unemployed - bash the unemployed............

Boring.

Who fucked up the economy ?

The unemployed didnt and if anyone doesnt like the fact there are growing numbers of unemployed then stop voting for politicians and parties that dont represent you or this country.

Where are the jobs going to come from to solve unemployment ?

They are not coming from anywhere so get used to it and those that bitch about the unemployed should consider that they could become unemployed at any time through no fault of their own.

Just saying......

Perhaps that's what the Government's in the process of doing.  A bit of pain before the gain!!  What do you think?

What do i think ?

Are you a Taxi driver ?

[Roger Godpleton]

Iain Duncan Smith has read The Bible.

[The Legendary Shark]

Iain Duncan Smith has read The Bible.

Indeed. However, like most politicians he must have skipped over the parts about usury.

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

The Bankers screwed up the economy.

I don't see any tabloid Tories calling for them to be put on £1 an hour and forced to sweep the streets. WE [the taxpayer] gave them a handout as I recall. 

[Old Tankie]

No, I'm not a taxi driver, Peter, but I could well have been, as I'm an Essex boy born and bred, whose family moved out of the East End to better themselves through hard work and diligence.  Oh, and by the way, I won't be unemployed, Mate, as I've now retired, although I'm still "young at heart".

Ush! I'm one of those "baby boomers", you know that generation that only 10% of had the opportunity to go to university, and never had access to the credit available now.  We had to save up for things.  Perhaps if you youngsters had done the same we wouldn't be in the shit we're in now!!

[Roger Godpleton]

I WORKED HARD ALL MY LIFE TO AFFORD THAT SECOND EXCLAMATION MARK IT IS THE SWEAT ON MY BROW DO YOU WANT ME TO MAIL YOU MY SWEAT DON'T THINK I WON'T DO IT YOU FUCKING LEECHES

[Old Tankie]

SEE!!  ROGE GETS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[House of Usher]

Ush! I'm one of those "baby boomers", you know that generation that only 10% of had the opportunity to go to university, and never had access to the credit available now.  We had to save up for things.  Perhaps if you youngsters had done the same we wouldn't be in the shit we're in now!!

I'm probably wasting my time, but there is a point here and you're missing it. The baby boomers by and large enjoyed full employment and benefited most from the welfare society. Heck, Thatcher was even doling out council houses at a discount to the ones who hadn't bought a house on their own initiative, which is why there is such a shortgage of council houses today. Our economy becoming heavily dependent on credit was eagerly encouraged by the Tories. That and mass unemployment were what brought about the so-called 'great economic miracle' of the 1980s. The reason we have so many unemployed people now is that Thatcher thought unemployment was a price worth paying for low inflation. The genuis part of this wheeze was that you could then blame unemployed people for it afterwards.

I don't see the relevance of university participation in this discussion. In the 1970s 14% of school leavers went to university, and by the early 1990s it was 20% and rising. The opportunities for my generation to go to university were not as great as double the chances of yours - certainly not quintupled as they are now. Even with average A-level grades one would still have got into university before John Major removed the cap on student numbers in 1989, even from a comprehensive school. One reason why even good academic performers didn't go to university in the '50s and '60s is that there were still grammar schools. If you went to a grammar school you didn't need to go to university. Things are a bit more shit than that now, and have been for a good 30 years and more.

One major difference to education funding is that the student grant was universal until the 1980s, when Sir Keith Joseph introduced means testing and froze the grant in 1983. Who were the last generation to get the benefit of full maintenance grants regardless of parental income? Oh look, it's our friends the baby boom generation again. Over the course of the next three decades it became a policy aim of all parties that students should make increasing use of credit to pay for their studies, including maintenance, ie borrowing money to pay for rent and food, something considered ruinous for working and unemployed people. Needless to say, with half the school leaver population now going to university, and in a permanent recession, the benefits of going to university are not what they were 30 years ago.

I can't tell if you're saying your generation missed out on going to university or got off lightly by not having to because there were other options. I'm sure there's plenty to be said in favour of either point of view.

[Old Tankie]

Hi Ush, no, you're not wasting your time, we just have different views.  I know you're in the education field so I'll take your word for it that 14% of people in the '70s went to university.  I can only say that where I came from I never came across anybody who'd been to university.  It was only when I joined the Army and met the officer class that I had the pleasure of meeting a graduate.

As for uni, we were proud parents as our son became the first person in either of our families to reach this elevated position.  But what an eye opener!!  Things have got to change.  We can no longer carry on with the nonsense that at some universities, like my son's, first year studies don't even go towards the degree mark.  Seven grand that first year cost me, I wish I'd have known that at the start, 'cos if I had, my lad would definitely have had to find himself a part-time job!

If the new system stops people doing pointless courses and just going on a three year "piss-up", I'm all for it.  Under the current system, why should "white van" man and the unemployed pay taxes to send people to uni.  Here's an idea, let the Government pay for everything; reduce most uni courses to two years (medical, science and engineering courses would obviously be longer); students to spend more time in lecture theatres; and the authorities to make sure that everybody grafts.  If they don't want to do that, sling them out or let them fund themselves.  What do you think of that idea?

[Peter Wolf]

 Oh, and by the way, I won't be unemployed, Mate, as I've now retired, although I'm still "young at heart".

Goody for you but i bet you are feeling the pinch.

I am not defending those that choose to nothing and feed off the system but those who become unemployed because of present economic problems or for any other reason that they are not personally responsible for like living in an area where there are no jobs.

Thats my point and i dont think its unreasonable or hard to understand.

[House of Usher]

There's a lot of food for thought there. A proper response would take considerable time and effort, and I'm sure other people have views too besides me. I'll try and respond off the top of my head.

Hmm. Can't say I'd ever met a graduate either, except some of the younger teachers at the schools I attended; certainly not the older ones.

First year not counting towards the final mark is fairly common and used to be standard. The first year used to consist of a mixture of optional and compulsory modules to give students a broader-based education and the opportunity to sample other subjects in case they had made the wrong choice and wanted to switch, but most importantly it was a test to see if they were capable of the level of study needed to complete the degree, hence having to pass the first year exams to continue, and after that being allowed to carry on to the end.

Split finals are becoming increasingly common, whereby exams in the second year count towards the final mark as well as the exams taken at the end of three years.

Students having to take jobs to support themselves can adversely affect studying - quite simply the less time spent earning, the more study time you have and the greater the competitive advantage you have over fellow students. You're probably right that having to work shouldn't make a great deal of difference to the first year, when all that matters is getting a passing grade. There are retakes in September.

I'm all for reducing the number of university students, especially the ones who are there for a piss-up - it's not in their best interests to borrow huge amounts of money for the purpose when the same result could be achieved without the debt by working for a living. I'm all in favour of the government (that's the taxpayer again) paying for everything, but that means going back to reduced participation at 10% of school leavers or fewer, which, again, I have no problem with. However, any reduction in participation has the effect of increasing the numbers of unemployed people, and politicians don't like that.

Two year degrees would be a horrible development, but I do believe they are inevitable when what universities are asked to deliver now is training, not education. The trouble is a two-year degree changes what a degree is. The learning experience would be shallower and even more instrumental than it is already. I'm not in favour. However, there are very serious people promoting this as a serious proposition. I'm glad it doesn't affect me.

Students should definitely spend more time in lecture theatres. Unfortunately, the reason why they don't is the massive expansion of student numbers. When they doubled the size of the student population there were not enough lecture theatres or laboratories to go round, so they reduced the amount of time students were required to spend in them. Instead of 30 students having two lectures in a day with two lecturers you now have 60 students having one lecture a day because whilst student numbers doubled, the size of the lecture theatre didn't. However many staff you have (and there have been cutbacks) staff-student contact has to be timetabled around the availability of teaching space.

Things won't carry on as they are. Enormous changes are on the way, and one of the likely effects is a narrowing of the university curriculum. There will be a big reduction in our capacity to teach a wide variety of subjects, starting with foreign languages.