The Tories

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

A sinister new twist in the Mitchell saga - Telegraph did he do it or didnt he CCTV casts doubt on account of Andrew Mitchell exchange - Channel 4 News if he didnt do it .why did he admit to it .its all rather confusing

The only person confused is you cmon which you aptly show every time you honour us with your presence. Andrew Mitchell admitted he swore at the police but never used the word pleb, it now seems the witness to that so called pled remark was a police officer who wasn't even there, do pay attention of you'll be made to stand in the corner with your dunces hat on

[cmonstanley]

wheres the cctv from ? was it a freedom of information request he admitted everything then changed his mind is it classed as a u-turn

[Boeing Guy]

C'mon, what really angers me is this. You knock ALL political parties except your beloved Labour.
Although you claim not to have supported the last Labour government, you did not post anything negative about Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc, before the the current incumbents.
You have not said anything against Ed Balls (it up) or any of his cronies.
Why don't you run for office, seeing you could do better.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

wheres the cctv from ? was it a freedom of information request he admitted everything then changed his mind is it classed as a u-turn

U Turn if you want the gentleman's not for turning

[Lucysgirl]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

what does everybody think about the new redundancy laws BBC News - Redundancy talks period to be cut from 90 to 45 days

.
It just depends on the circumstances; for instance :-

(1) if I were a worker who had found another job I could walk into, I wouldn't be pleased if I lost the job because I had to wait 90 days to qualify for my redundancy pay.

(2) again depending on the circumstances I can see where both the 45 days and the 90 days negotiations could lose the company more money. What if everything was settled in a month but the company had to keep paying the negotiating consultants extremely expensive salaries for the 2 months when they were dong nothing. It might be best to allow some form of legal leeway of between 45 and 90 days to assist both the workers and the employers.

[Lucysgirl]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

The real news: Jeremy Hunt is up to no good with the NHS | Deborah Orr | Politics | The Guardian read this, this is what jeremy hunt is doing.goodbye to the nhs.people get your head out of the sand

.
Do we really still have a National Health Service as set up in the 1940s?

If you remember in 2002 tenders were being invited from foreign clinical teams for work in our NHS hospitals!!!

Once upon a time money from the treasury would build the hospitals and buy the equipment plus pay for the staff. If we're honest about it we'll see that Blair/Brown got into bed with private financiers when they thought up the "Private Finance Initiative", which they promised would be a good deal for the country..

If the Treasury had organised the cash for the new hospitals we'd be paying about 3% interest. We should all cry when we see how much Blair/Brown have "saved us" :-

<<The private finance initiative substantially increases the cost of hospital building. Total costs (construction costs plus financing costs) in a sample of hospitals built under the private finance initiative are 18-60% higher than construction costs alone.



Shareholders in private finance initiative schemes can expect real returns of 15-25% a year.1



The consortiums involved in these schemes charge the NHS fees equivalent to 11.2-18.5% of construction costs.


Medical staff are deeply implicated in hospital private finance initiative schemes. Clinical directors approve and medical directors sign off the full business case, clinical posts are lost, and heroic targets are set for gains in medical productivity. Clinical concerns are generally met by assurances that the largely undisclosed price of the private finance initiative is well worth paying because schemes approved by the initiative offer better value for money than public procurement. This claim is based on the fact that, for approval purposes, all privately financed schemes are compared with a notional publicly funded equivalent, the public sector comparator. However, this comparison is carried out using an appraisal methodology under which the cash payments associated with each option are “discounted,” and costs are adjusted to reflect “risk transfer.” Both these factors have an influence on the results of the comparison.>>
source: PFI in the NHS?is there an economic case? | BMJ

[Lucysgirl]

If this article and TV discussion programmes are correct that we need another million engineers to fill those anticipated new jobs then I don't think this government will be able to keep its promise to curb immigration. There aren't enough technical colleges or grammar/comprehensive schools teaching sciences & maths to cater for firms who want to employ apprentices nor sufficient university places to cater for engineering management. We need to catch up with the likes of China, Germany, etc.

<< The UK needs more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates in order to aid the economic recovery according to a new report released by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Of the 1.25 million science, engineering and technology professionals and technicians the report claims are needed by 2020, a significant number of them should be engineers, as the UK is currently failing to produce the required numbers of engineers.

The report’s findings follow a recent warning by the Institute of Engineering & Technology (IET), that Britain is producing only 25-50% of the engineering graduates required for the UK economy. In effect this puts the number of additional engineers required by 2020 at 200,000. With only 90,000 STEM students graduating per year and a quarter of those choosing careers outside of Engineering there is already a shortfall.

Some believe the way to increasing numbers lies with the relationships universities develop with employers from the engineering and technology sectors. An increase in the number of students taking STEM subjects will be crucial to the future economy, enabling an increase in the output of the UK.

In addition to findings of the report another survey commissioned by IET for 2012 has shown the demand for engineers is growing. 58% of companies are planning to recruit, compared to just 36% in 2011.>>
source: NRP - About Us - News - Over One Million New Engineering & Technology Professionals needed by 2020

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Lucysgirl

If this article and TV discussion programmes are correct that we need another million engineers to fill those anticipated new jobs then I don't think this government will be able to keep its promise to curb immigration. There aren't enough technical colleges or grammar/comprehensive schools teaching sciences & maths to cater for firms who want to employ apprentices nor sufficient university places to cater for engineering management. We need to catch up with the likes of China, Germany, etc.

<< The UK needs more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates in order to aid the economic recovery according to a new report released by the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Of the 1.25 million science, engineering and technology professionals and technicians the report claims are needed by 2020, a significant number of them should be engineers, as the UK is currently failing to produce the required numbers of engineers.

The report’s findings follow a recent warning by the Institute of Engineering & Technology (IET), that Britain is producing only 25-50% of the engineering graduates required for the UK economy. In effect this puts the number of additional engineers required by 2020 at 200,000. With only 90,000 STEM students graduating per year and a quarter of those choosing careers outside of Engineering there is already a shortfall.

Some believe the way to increasing numbers lies with the relationships universities develop with employers from the engineering and technology sectors. An increase in the number of students taking STEM subjects will be crucial to the future economy, enabling an increase in the output of the UK.

In addition to findings of the report another survey commissioned by IET for 2012 has shown the demand for engineers is growing. 58% of companies are planning to recruit, compared to just 36% in 2011.>>
source: NRP - About Us - News - Over One Million New Engineering & Technology Professionals needed by 2020

All of which is pretty much down to the way higher education is funded. Courses such as Coronation Street and The Beatles attract funding, as do one day courses on Health and Safety, Food Hygiene and Load Management. The line between university and college has become blurred. So many colleges of further education are applying for university status to get onto this gravy train.

I'm always a tad sceptical of surveys that benefit the instigators.

Degree courses in Science, Technology and Engineering have to fend for themselves under Cameron, as they have done under Blair, Brown and Thatcher. And I'm not even going to mention tuition fees, oops, already did

Those that are lucky enough, wealthy enough and smart enough to get onto these limited courses sod off to countries that value them as soon as they graduate.

[Lucysgirl]

Originally Posted by Guinness

All of which is pretty much down to the way higher education is funded. Courses such as Coronation Street and The Beatles attract funding, as do one day courses on Health and Safety, Food Hygiene and Load Management. The line between university and college has become blurred. So many colleges of further education are applying for university status to get onto this gravy train.

I'm always a tad sceptical of surveys that benefit the instigators.

Degree courses in Science, Technology and Engineering have to fend for themselves under Cameron, as they have done under Blair, Brown and Thatcher. And I'm not even going to mention tuition fees, oops, already did

Those that are lucky enough, wealthy enough and smart enough to get onto these limited courses sod off to countries that value them as soon as they graduate.

I can definitely say that Thatcher did entice and pay for uni courses. My daughter had already graduated then joined time served electricians, engineers and others at university in Thatcher's newly set up "Design and Technolgy" degree course. This was set up to increase our exports, because France, for example, were refusing to import our products due to them not being "pleasing to look at" This government has put more money into bursaries for maths & science degree courses. I like to be fair and if I could recall Blair & Brown giving out freebie courses I would set them down here too - maybe someone else could shine alight.

What is so depressing is that when there's a turn up in trade the majority of company job vacancies always stipulate "with experience" - the experience usually anything between two and five years. This government is trying to solve this problem of the need for "experience" - in fact my grandson is in the middle of his degree course and currently serving one year full time "job experience".... I doubt that will be long enough to satisfy future vacancy requirements and we'll be experiencing more immigration when the job markets open up.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Lucysgirl

I can definitely say that Thatcher did entice and pay for uni courses. My daughter had already graduated then joined time served electricians, engineers and others at university in Thatcher's newly set up "Design and Technolgy" degree course. This was set up to increase our exports, because France, for example, were refusing to import our products due to them not being "pleasing to look at" This government has put more money into bursaries for maths & science degree courses. I like to be fair and if I could recall Blair & Brown giving out freebie courses I would set them down here too - maybe someone else could shine alight.

What is so depressing is that when there's a turn up in trade the majority of company job vacancies always stipulate "with experience" - the experience usually anything between two and five years. This government is trying to solve this problem of the need for "experience" - in fact my grandson is in the middle of his degree course and currently serving one year full time "job experience".... I doubt that will be long enough to satisfy future vacancy requirements and we'll be experiencing more immigration when the job markets open up.

Yes, she did. She destroyed the industrial backbone of the country to break the unions and then realised that the balance of payments was screwed. Destroying industry meant that there was a disctinct lack of apprenticeships, unemployment in school leavers went through the roof. Being a self confessed design freak, she created what were basically mickey mouse degrees in box and package design, and the result was that we now need power saws to open packets of bacon, and most pieces of furniture come flat packed with non biodegradable polystyrene and mountains of bubble wrap. Over simplified puerile argument perhaps, but my point is she had an agenda and wasn't being altruistic about education for the masses.


But anyway, I thought we were discussing proper sciences, Maths, Science, Engineering and the associated scientific/engineering Technology. Yes, you get bog standard means tested bursaries for them, but the significant bursaries are privately funded and extremely limited. So I stand by my comment of lucky enough, wealthy enough etc...


As for the experience/qualification argument...the apprenticeship system used to work just fine before it was twisted beyond recognition by the previous and now the current government to massage the figures.

As an employer I'd take experience over qualification any day of the week, 'walking the walk over talking the talk'. I think more effort should be made by government to entice employers to invest in education. They should help them to take on a kid, give them tax/national insurance breaks to educate him and, more importantly, allow them to fire him if he isn't cutting the mustard, and not accuse them of bullying if they send him to get a bobbin of Whitworth thread.

[Lucysgirl]

Originally Posted by Guinness

Yes, she did. She destroyed the industrial backbone of the country to break the unions and then realised that the balance of payments was screwed. Destroying industry meant that there was a disctinct lack of apprenticeships, unemployment in school leavers went through the roof. Being a self confessed design freak, she created what were basically mickey mouse degrees in box and package design, and the result was that we now need power saws to open packets of bacon, and most pieces of furniture come flat packed with non biodegradable polystyrene and mountains of bubble wrap. Over simplified puerile argument perhaps, but my point is she had an agenda and wasn't being altruistic about education for the masses.


But anyway, I thought we were discussing proper sciences, Maths, Science, Engineering and the associated scientific/engineering Technology. Yes, you get bog standard means tested bursaries for them, but the significant bursaries are privately funded and extremely limited. So I stand by my comment of lucky enough, wealthy enough etc...


As for the experience/qualification argument...the apprenticeship system used to work just fine before it was twisted beyond recognition by the previous and now the current government to massage the figures.

As an employer I'd take experience over qualification any day of the week, 'walking the walk over talking the talk'. I think more effort should be made by government to entice employers to invest in education. They should help them to take on a kid, give them tax/national insurance breaks to educate him and, more importantly, allow them to fire him if he isn't cutting the mustard, and not accuse them of bullying if they send him to get a bobbin of Whitworth thread.

I still have my father's apprenticeship indenture document from the 1920s and thought it advanced the country when apprenticeships were provided free of charge by employers. Since the 1970s I've worked in manufacturing electronic equipment and it was in that decade when an A* graduate was employed - it didn't take long to realise the lad had never touched a component - all his "design experience" was through studying books. Thatcher set up a scheme as you outlined above which as a small company being squeezed by inflation, etc., we took advantage of circa 1981-82 and onwards. We thought this would set us up for when the upturn came, but when the upturn came we found larger companies were poaching the apprentices we'd trained and sent to day release college.

There was also a scheme introduced for those who would normally have lost their dole money if they took on any casual or part time work.

As for destroying "industrialisation" - When unions bring large companies to their knees you'll find foreign buyers moving in to buy the patents which they then produce abroad. Also, I think if you'd seen Esther Rantzen's programmes about shoddy British cars and noticed how many Brits were driving around in foreign imported cars you might vary your opinion slightly.

[cmonstanley]

never heard so much twaddle in my life.everybody knows the tories destroyed the apprenticeships by bringing in the yop,yts and destroying british industry. the apprentiship you are talking about was dumbed down it was a modern apprenticeship with less goverment funding and less training and another way to bring unemployment figures down,just like the benefits culture the tories created in the 80s.thatcher and lamont said high unemployment was a risk worth taking just to keep inflation down. in 1989 the tories freezed grants and reduced courses to save money,so you you have been ill advised on your information the facts and figures speak for themselves.you cant rewrite historywhile the tories were the party of law and order crime doubled under thatcher while she created unemployment. people have short memories.the tories opposed the national minimum wage,just think what the eastern europeans would be doing now, undercutting the average british worker.debt was made easier to get under the tory bankers,i just dont get it there was a credit crunch and they want us to borrow more to get out of it.its time to create jobs with a decent wage not downgrade jobs .

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

never heard so much twaddle in my life.everybody knows the tories destroyed the apprenticeships by bringing in the top,hats and destroying british industry. the apprenticeship you are talking about was dumbed down it was a modern apprenticeship with less government funding and less training and another way to bring unemployment figures down,just like the benefits culture the tories created in the 80s.thatcher and lamont said high unemployment was a risk worth taking just to keep inflation down. in 1989 the tories freezed grants and reduced courses to save money,so you you have been ill advised on your information the facts and figures speak for themselves.you cant rewrite historywhile the tories were the party of law and order crime doubled under thatcher while she created unemployment. people have short memories.the tories opposed the national minimum wage,just think what the eastern europeans would be doing now, undercutting the average british worker.debt was made easier to get under the tory bankers,i just dont get it there was a credit crunch and they want us to borrow more to get out of it.its time to create jobs with a decent wage not downgrade jobs .

Its Jobs for jobs sake that's got us into this shambolic mess in the first place, creating none jobs in the public sector, the public sector should run on the same lines as private business, the public sector has had it easy for too long, its reality time, maybe we could start by sacking MPS who haven't set foot in commons for over 12 months but still drawing their full salary, and you still can spell government right, you lazy ignorant prat

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

never heard so much twaddle in my life.everybody knows the tories destroyed the apprenticeships by bringing in the yop,yts and destroying british industry. the apprentiship you are talking about was dumbed down it was a modern apprenticeship with less goverment funding and less training and another way to bring unemployment figures down,just like the benefits culture the tories created in the 80s.thatcher and lamont said high unemployment was a risk worth taking just to keep inflation down. in 1989 the tories freezed grants and reduced courses to save money,so you you have been ill advised on your information the facts and figures speak for themselves.you cant rewrite historywhile the tories were the party of law and order crime doubled under thatcher while she created unemployment. people have short memories.the tories opposed the national minimum wage,just think what the eastern europeans would be doing now, undercutting the average british worker.debt was made easier to get under the tory bankers,i just dont get it there was a credit crunch and they want us to borrow more to get out of it.its time to create jobs with a decent wage not downgrade jobs .

If we are talking about twaddle then your post must take the biscuit.

The destruction of British manufacturaing took hold when we started to export jobs abroad.

A local firm which you may have heard of Howard and Bulloughs were a great engineering firm employing many men and women in our small town........they started selling the machinery abroad...machinery which would make goods that we had previously made in the Uk....and making them cheaper, because the employment costs in the countries these machines sold to, was lower that the costs here in the UK...making their goods cheaper than ours.

We were penalised for importing goods from abroad, but were being told that exporting was good...yes the exporting of ready made products would have been good, but the export of Machinery to make those productswas not so good...but it was backed by The Queens Award to Industry(Export).
This was first awarded in 1966...long before Margaret Thatcher came into power.
Once these jobs were gone they were gone for good. Never to return.

Tea towels(and a multitude of other woven cotton goods) that used to be made in Lancashire came into the country from Portugal...at a cost that we could not dream of making them for....and thus our industry declined.
The motor industry went in much the same way.

It is no damn good training apprentices if there is no industry to train them in...and no jobs for them to do.

And please do not get me started ont eh benefits culture...I just do NOT want to go there!!!!!

[cmonstanley]

no, but there is not very many jobs that are full time or permanent. so less tax returns and less ambition.so that means anybody with ambition will just leave the uk its a cycle of madness.so as lucysgirl says they will have to import specialists from abroad.oh wait a minute they are already paying companies from abroad, well over the odds to do nothing and reap the benefits of profit to pay their shareholders .theyve created a monster