Bankruptcy!

[User00025]

The one good thing about Cadburys moving abroad is that you can now get an alcoholic drink in Bournville instead of bringing it home in a violin case. Must now go out and get a Buck!

 

[big ears]

How very dare you!!! Warwickshire is not the West Midlands. I wonder why you should think it would be rife in that particular area and not in the far West.

Cos it's cured by Pasties me ansum!!

 

[User00025]

Cos it's cured by Pasties me ansum!!

You mean funny shaped meat and tater pies my lover.

 

[big ears]

You mean funny shaped meat and tater pies my lover.

Righton

 

[scubadog]

Yes because lets face it after 7 years training and 100K+ expense that £35,000 sallery in London should net her a nice mansion and a Roles Royce at least.

Mind you she has to repay at 9% of earnings over threash hold so that's a bit of a bummer but on the upside the calculators reckons she should have it paid off in 26 years


My sense of self entitlement doesnt come into this. I earn well and have invested reasnobly well and will be for the most part unaffected by this or anything to do with Brexit. Its a bit like understanding handicapped people. Yo will never truly understand the restrictions on the disabled until you have tried to live using a wheel chare for six months.

I personaly had no idea how awfull it was trying to train as a NHS professional in the UK. Over the last two years I have lerned a lot.

Its frankly disgusting what the Con-artists have done to the NHS training of YOUR medical support staff.

Poor career choice, clearly.

Don't look for sympathy from the rest of society for your (or her) bad decisions.

 

[scubadog]

I have watched many interviews with Patric Lindford and Jacob Rees Mogg (Of whom I am a big fan) both present fantastic argument for the leave campaign but bth leave me screeming at the screen fr somone to ask the big missing question.

Yes we are very competatative on things like hi tec and insurance markets but we are very uncompetitive in areas like low tec manufacturing.

My grave concern is our low to middle tec companies will be unable to compet outside the so call protection of the EU. I simply don't see any ray of suinshine for our food industry as if we remove protectionist tarreffs on food imports we wil be buying in vast amounts of imported goods which will damage our farmers.

Dispite my personal high reguard of JR Mogg I find it deeply concerning he touts things like the working hours directives, low energy light bulbs and restrictions on polluting pestacides as things we want to remove the restrictions on in order to lower our costs? I am not a big fan of bringing back TBTO and Permetherin for agro use (its a massive marine polutent and accidental spillage into water courses has caused catastrophic results) and whilst I do feel low energy bulbs need technical development, a retun to the old stile bulbs with the resultant increase in our carbon footprint is not the way to go either.

Lindford obviously coached May on her Stronger and Better argument because hes got a simila technique of repeating the same sound bite ad nausium in response to pointed questions.

I particularly like his turning the protection of the EU on its head and making it sound bad that theres price fixing that helps prevent massive undercutting of the market by countries whos overheads are so much lower than our own. With our high standards of living extremely high minimum wage an high standards of health and welfare I fail to see how we would not suffer outside the protection of the market.

Note in the video all balancing argument from Dr Stephen Warlock was edited out?

It's boom time in the UK food industry right. Is, and projected to continue when we leave the EU.

Think about it... It's now cheaper to buy our own goods than import them. I really don't get why people struggle to comprehend this!

 

[scubadog]

i see your point but am not 100% sure of the conclusions. There are many reasons why sponsorship is difficult some as you outline but other as we do not have a massive culture of corporate sponsorship. We as a country are one of the lowest investors from corporate companies in our graduates in the G7 group. Our companies pay one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in the G7 group. Other G7 countries ask their corporations to invest in graduate schemes we do not per se.

I'm not suggesting this but an interesting fact from Question time last night is that as large buisineses are the major benefactors of graduates if we put up corporation tax to 27%, which where it was and still lower than most G7 countries, it will raise enough money for free undergraduate and graduate education (no tuition fees) for everyone and a free bursary/grant for the lowest income group.

its food for thought especially if we want as Mrs May says to "invest in our future" and "not burden our children".

Strange.....all of the thousands of students (including myself) that I have studied with have ALL had spoken sponsors......

There is huge investment from companies in universities these days.


It is also now compulsory for companies to invest in apprenticeships. Unfortunately the last labour government drove the nail I to the coffin on appreciateships by pushing EVERYONE (regardless of ability or commercial value) through over inflated and often pointless degree qualifications at university.

 

[scubadog]

EU referendum: Airbus warns Out vote may hit investment - BBC News

Realy odd......since airbus have just expanded their production lines in the UK. Some would say business adapt to changing g markets. Some would also say that businesses do the like change and perhaps that's why they were protecting their own interests by making such statements. Full by thing is....airbus, rolls Royce ect all expanded their UK based since the vote.

 

[scubadog]

Yes and a typical looser as stated in the interview was car manufacturing which to me is a serious concern along with our other heavy plant and engine concerns. (JCB etc)

No I am not an expert just an interested observer trying to make sense of the available information

I take offense at the hard working bit. I know a lot of extremely hard working people who live on the edge of poverty with dignity rather than scrounge of the state

I also know some extremely well educated hard working people who don't earn a lot of money dispite huge personal investment in education

And I know people who earn 7 figure salleries for doing not a lot realy but knowing all the right people to get the job or having inherited the business or wealth.

You don't go to Eaton for the education, you go there for the networking.

I have voted Tory since Thatcher I did waver a bit under major as I wanted Michael Heseltine for PM and felt Major was a non enterty

But No one is guaranteed my unquestioning vote.

I always do the research and vote with my personal view of who would be right to run the country. It just happens to have been tory till now.

Now I am looking to protect the country from a landslide Conservitive result. May is a gormless, rudderless leader who lacks gravitas, just look at how she's treated in the EU, they have no respect for her.


The Conservitives will win but we need a balance of power in Parliament to ensure she doesnt steam roller through their policy









S

Go talk with the likes of JLR.....they have no plans to.move and continue to seek expansion in the UK.

 

[scubadog]

Like Dyson?

They support Brexit because they want to out source outside of the EU to pay cheap labour, no health and safety, no sick pay, no pensions and yet still sell the things here at the same prices. So they become even richer men.

Anyone who thinks that Lord Bamford or Dyson is or are supporting Brexit because "it's good for the ordinary Brit" with a mortgage, two kids at school and "just about managing" has an empty gap between their ears as big as the trenches cut by his diggers.

Look at Cadbury. Closed and outsourced to Poland as that as cheap as they can get but still be inside the EU trading zone. Listen up...these jobs gone to Poland are not coming back to UK after Brexit....in fact worse..

There will be an huge financial incentive to outsource what we've still got left in the UK outside the UK after Brexit as whilst the flight of jobs to the new Eastern European EU joiners may have been bad for some UK manufacturing but at least it kept some jobs here.

As moving to Eastern Europe was still a lesser incentive to outsource to vis-a-vis the jobs remaining in the UK than if we were able to outsource outside the EU. Once that need for goods to be "made in EU" goes they will go lock stack and barrel to the Far East.

Wow..... seriously, if you are going to pen an argument, get the basics right first.

If a company outsources, then they do the pay sick pay or pensions. That's why the outsource!

 

[scubadog]

i see your point but am not 100% sure of the conclusions. There are many reasons why sponsorship is difficult some as you outline but other as we do not have a massive culture of corporate sponsorship. We as a country are one of the lowest investors from corporate companies in our graduates in the G7 group. Our companies pay one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in the G7 group. Other G7 countries ask their corporations to invest in graduate schemes we do not per se.

I'm not suggesting this but an interesting fact from Question time last night is that as large buisineses are the major benefactors of graduates if we put up corporation tax to 27%, which where it was and still lower than most G7 countries, it will raise enough money for free undergraduate and graduate education (no tuition fees) for everyone and a free bursary/grant for the lowest income group.

its food for thought especially if we want as Mrs May says to "invest in our future" and "not burden our children".

Nice idea to provide free education, but i reality poor.

My 13 years of education at universities has shown that it already is businesses providing the funding. But they do so for their employees or sponsories that THEY want.

This way, the students receiving the education have been selected, either for academic ability or because they actually want to be there for their company.

The problem with providing free university places is that you usually get people that dont really want to be there, but are pushed through because it's the thing to do!

These students often fail, or get sub standard grades or qualifications in useless subjects that employers don't actually want!

I have seen this first hand, and it is widely regarded in universities that sponsored students actually do well, whilst around 75% of students that start full time, unsponsored fail or quit.

 

[JTO]

A chap that I was at technical college with, has 3 children: A vet, a hospital consultant and a barrister. He, himself, has done a (sponsored)PhD in construction maintenance management in recent years. He reckons that the OND course that we did in the 60s was worth 1.5 modern university degrees.

 

[enfieldspares]

He reckons that the OND course that we did in the 60s was worth 1.5 modern university degrees.

Yes, I'd agree. When I did my degree, 1976-1979, it was ALL closed book Final Examinations. Course work was irrelevant and, indeed, optional. As was attendance at lectures which were, throughout the University, open to all...even members of the public. Not one page of it counted towards your degree. The reasoning being that you either knew the subject and that a closed book final examination system was the best test of that.

 

[mchughcb]

If all the current higher education was not free. And students couldn't afford it. What would happen to the youth unemployment rate?

 

[topscots1]

The students would find jobs in factories. Just the same a degree does not guarantee employment.
A good work ethic is something many degree holders lack.If less emphasis were placed on Degrees perhaps we would dee the end of career politicians with no measurable life experience ?

 

[enfieldspares]

All John Major's fault. Allowing good, decent, fit for purpose polytechnics offering useful higher level training to re-title themselves as universities eventually peddling virtually useless degrees to kids "wanting to go to Uni".

 

[willie_gunn]

All John Major's fault. Allowing good, decent, fit for purpose polytechnics offering useful higher level training to re-title themselves as universities eventually peddling virtually useless degrees to kids "wanting to go to Uni".

I don't think John Major can take all the blame.

The problem was exacerbated by Tony Blair's pledge to have 50% of under 30's attend Higher Education, resulting in 500,000 more people "needing" degrees. Tuition fees, introduced in 1998 and made variable in 2004, encouraged universities to offer more and more places in order to increase available funding.

Setting arbitrary targets for the proportion of students with degrees expanded their availability but devalued their worth.

 

[Cottis]

I don't think John Major can take all the blame.

The problem was exacerbated by Tony Blair's pledge to have 50% of under 30's attend Higher Education, resulting in 500,000 more people "needing" degrees. Tuition fees, introduced in 1998 and made variable in 2004, encouraged universities to offer more and more places in order to increase available funding.

Setting arbitrary targets for the proportion of students with degrees expanded their availability but devalued their worth.

Very true. I am not exactly pro Tory but Blair's government was deffo responsible for the ultimate dilution in terms of the current strength of a University degree. It seems like a nice touch to push a disproportionate amount of the population through academic higher education but in reality it is pointless. This approach does not create the same amount of relevant career opportunities overnight.

The general population, both now and going forward, would benefit much more from the older system of encouraging people to follow their skills and strengths, whether this be academic or vocational.

The main issue that bothers me is the unbalanced amount of opportunity afforded to all across the board. That is all I wish a future government to achieve. We cannot fix the current generations failures. We cannot tempt the current population to give up their vices, we cannot teach old dogs new tricks. Alas, politics is about the here and now and how the next set of votes are garnered. All parties refuse to give a **** about 20yrs time. Tis a shame, as this is the period that ultimately could be affected in a positive way.

Still don't know how I will vote. As usual, all parties say a handful of things I hold dear and all parties say a few very daft things as well. I guess I just have to decide who is the least daft and of the positive policies, which is the most positive. Hmmmm, slim pickings.

I do feel my choice will be based on a fair degree of charity though. I don't have much but I bet I have more than some people in this world. It matters not to give a little bit more to enable others a larger bite at the table of opportunity. No solution is ever perfect but good intentions will always prevail over self preservation.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Good post. And welcome to the site.

K

 

[Chasey]

Poor career choice, clearly.

Don't look for sympathy from the rest of society for your (or her) bad decisions.

People like you baffell me?

You no doubt complain about the state of the NHS and in the same breath you suggest anyone working in the NHS has made a poor carear choice? As obviously to you the best carear choice is not anything to help people or bolster society, but instead the one with the most money?

Your obviously so rich that the failure of the NHS is of no concern to you and care nothing for your fellow man