The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[OutByEaster?]

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Roads: owned by the state, built by private companies. A faster, better, more productive motorway does not make the company who build the road more money.

Rail: owned by franchisee for the contract period and also maintained in the interest of the same company. Quicker rail equals more money. Specific interest in actually improving the service applies.

I think you misunderstand how the UK's rail system works - the track and stations and infrastructure aren't owned by the franchisees (in fact, in a lot of cases, they don't even own the trains) - ticket prices aren't linked to track maintenance.

Equally, quicker rail does not equal more money - you're confusing profitability and efficiency - rail companies aren't trying to provide the best service they can, they're trying to make the most profit they can. Those are very different things.

And finally - the M6 was made into a smart motorway a couple of years back on the stretch I use - it's much better - I mean, it's still the M6 and it's still horrible, but it's a lot better with four lanes than three - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when the work's done.

[bickster]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

The number of people going to uni massively increased around 20 or so years ago when the government realised that taking more school leavers into uni meant taking a large number of people off the, then troubling, unemployment figures. Uni gradually changed from being about further educating a relatively small number of bright people to keeping large numbers of people off the dole. Then as the cost of teaching all these extra people became a factor along came loans and all the rest of the problems discussed above.  And if nearly everyone gets a degree these days, then employers will want candidates to have one. It becomes a circle of behaviour. 

That's a whole different problem. Turning all the Polytechnics, Teacher Training Colleges and even FE Colleges into Universities was a grave mistake. The Huge amount of people now going to University compared to 20-30 years ago is a lot down to the fact they changed the names of the institutions. 

This has lead to all these daft league tables (that again!) Here in Liverpool, two years ago JMU (that's Liverpool Poly) proudly announced it was ahead of the Russel Group member Liverpool University in the league table, this year Hope University (St Katherine's College, catholic paedo training facility) did the same. Trouble is the league table they are quoting is the bonkers student satisfaction table. All the kids graduating from the real university will still get the better jobs no matter how dissatisfied they are.

it would be much better to go back to something similar to the old system. Universities for accademic and critical thinking, Polys and Teacher Training colleges for the more vocational degrees and FE Colleges for hairdressing, builders etc.

They broke a system that actually worked well

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The number of people going to uni massively increased around 20 or so years ago when the government realised that taking more school leavers into uni meant taking a large number of people off the, then troubling, unemployment figures. Uni gradually changed from being about further educating a relatively small number of bright people to keeping large numbers of people off the dole. Then as the cost of teaching all these extra people became a factor along came loans and all the rest of the problems discussed above.  And if nearly everyone gets a degree these days, then employers will want candidates to have one. It becomes a circle of behaviour. 

This is the biggest problem I see too. We have too many people that went to uni because they didn't know what to do. They were encouraged to do so as it is easier for the state to have them in uni studying something they'll probably never use rather than trying to get them into apprenticeships and work related schemes.

If anything we should be better at apprenticeships, Germany has a very good system for this and it works very well. Pushing unsure teens into uni making them end up in courses that only gives them some soft transferable skills rather than actual work related skills for £9k a year is a joke.

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, bickster said:

Universities for accademic...

I'm afraid it's a poly for you then. 

 

[peterms]

The proportion of students in the UK compared to the general population seems about average for EU countries, according to the table below.

About the same as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, and a bit less than many others.  The only real outlier is Luxembourg, which is surprisingly low. 

 

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, peterms said:

I'm afraid it's a poly for you then. 

 

Nah, degree by computer error (shamefully the truth) 

[MakemineVanilla]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Can't say I was expecting you to come out in favour of central planning. 

It was a question and I understand that there are some cogent arguments against it but discretion is the better part of valour. 

[bickster]

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

This is the biggest problem I see too. We have too many people that went to uni because they didn't know what to do. They were encouraged to do so as it is easier for the state to have them in uni studying something they'll probably never use rather than trying to get them into apprenticeships and work related schemes.

If anything we should be better at apprenticeships, Germany has a very good system for this and it works very well. Pushing unsure teens into uni making them end up in courses that only gives them some soft transferable skills rather than actual work related skills for £9k a year is a joke.

Pushing kids into a trade they may or may not like at 18 is equally as daft. Barry went into bricklaying but discovered after a year he'd rather be a nail technician

Its the 9k that's the joke. Also it's 9k per year plus interest

[magnkarl]

44 minutes ago, bickster said:

Pushing kids into a trade they may or may not like at 18 is equally as daft. Barry went into bricklaying but discovered after a year he'd rather be a nail technician

Its the 9k that's the joke. Also it's 9k per year plus interest

9k a year plus interest for 3 years and then figuring out that you don't really have any aspirations or 1 year as an apprentice doing something that will give you transferable skills for next to no monetary sacrifice is very different. You can quit being an apprentice without much financial loss. If you quit uni you'll have wasted 9 x years attended. Apprenticeships are a much softer way for people to figure out what they want than uni - it also adds to the place of work.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Pushing kids into a trade they may or may not like at 18 is equally as daft. Barry went into bricklaying but discovered after a year he'd rather be a nail technician

Its the 9k that's the joke. Also it's 9k per year plus interest

This is a bit of a generalisation, but we're now in a situation where there's perhaps more pressure to go to uni than there used to be. With a wider range of options, more apprenticeships and other training schemes, then there would be less likelihood of people making unsuitable choices, just because of pressure to follow the university path. I think that was the point. Of course people being people, some will always change their minds part way through whatever path they choose.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

9k a year plus interest for 3 years and then figuring out that you don't really have any aspirations or 1 year as an apprentice doing something that will give you transferable skills for next to no monetary sacrifice is very different. You can quit being an apprentice without much financial loss. If you quit uni you'll have wasted 9 x years attended. Apprenticeships are a much softer way for people to figure out what they want than uni - it also adds to the place of work.

Some brilliant points in the last few posts, good god how we needed this logic 25 years ago!

Agreed, @magnkarl. I am also delighted with T-levels because they help parents who aren't sure about apprenticeships motivate their kids to do something more vocational. Plus it shrinks the qualification/wage gap (which is not as clear-cut as people make out). T-levels are a huge step in moving education back in line with employment and what a surprise, it happened when Gove moved on and industry was invited in. The cross party support for T-levels is so welcomed.

But imo @bickster has brought up a very important point. I have long argued that our education/career system shouldn't be classified as successful relative to when you leave traditional education;16, 18, 21, 24 and PHD. (just general ages). On the continent you're not expected to be settled until mid 20-s with some influencing decisions in modules generally taken before that....or as magnkari says, through vocational work with transferable skills that are recognised or delivered through industry. (Germany).

In the UK, age, transferable skills, natural talent and time available are all secondary to what qualification (not talent) you have, imo that cycle needs to end. But there's a social problem too, too many kids are not allowed to live at home past 16 and 18, they are literally kicked out. So what do we do here? Housing benefit cut to reduce costs and encourage more parents to keep their children at home and in education/learning? Build loads of cheap homes for young people and have it part of education funding? Pay people to go to University (as Denmark does)? Equalise qualification/experience so transferable skills means you're not automatically sifted out of a CV pile? Or something else?

On the continent home support seems further reaching, with 34% of our kids being at home between the ages of 18-35.

Quote

Share of young adults aged 18-34 living with their parents by age and sex - EU-SILC survey

 

[HanoiVillan]

I keep seeing people mention Germany as an alternative model, but the German model is more than just apprenticeships. I mean, if we as a nation were serious about emulating the German model, the very first thing we would have to do is withdraw article 50. 

[Chindie]

It's been said again and again, but a degree is rarely vocational. And shouldn't have to be either. My degree is completely unrelated to my job. The degree effectively shows I'm not thick and can commit to something.

There's also an argument the loan is barely a loan. I'd rather the loan wasn't £9k but it's not like any other money you could borrow, and doesn't have the same weight over you IMO.

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, Chindie said:

There's also an argument the loan is barely a loan. I'd rather the loan wasn't £9k but it's not like any other money you could borrow, and doesn't have the same weight over you IMO.

Problems arise, though, when a government retrospectively changes the terms of a loan or when it sells off the old portfolio (I'm supposing at pennies on the pound) to an organization that changes the way existing loans have been managed for up to a couple of decades (see Erudio's handling of things for old style loans over the past couple of years).

[tonyh29]

38 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I keep seeing people mention Germany as an alternative model, but the German model is more than just apprenticeships. I mean, if we as a nation were serious about emulating the German model, the very first thing we would have to do is withdraw article 50. 

Or invade Czechoslavakia

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

51 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I keep seeing people mention Germany as an alternative model, but the German model is more than just apprenticeships. I mean, if we as a nation were serious about emulating the German model, the very first thing we would have to do is withdraw article 50. 

Why do you think that?

From my limited UK based perspective, I have always felt Germany's main advantage was an ability to deliver education because employment opportunities were sustainable through business partnership, specifically regional business.

In EU terms, our compliance to regulation appears more stringent than in Germany. Maybe because they have a historic approach that cannot be changed for the EU? because they don't see the point in complying? or because we're getting it wrong?

Two examples in housing. In Germany, local/regional builders are facilitated through strategic planning to be in a room with clients, clients then pick which developer builds the homes for them. They have joint mortgages, strategic land (and land tax which is v different from UK) and college linked industry training. Because of that they also have assured pipelines of work. This allows businesses to keep training staff and improving the quality of work relative to location. This then drives innovation.

Also, their Housing Associations do not use OJEU procurement which keeps costs lower and pipelines more sustainable.

It means regions can influence supply directly as well as guarantee and sustain local employment. I had a good chat to a German minister about it. 

Are we too worried about falling foul of competition law, or are we lazy?
It was a shame nobody had the answer when LDV and Rover were on their knees and it reminds me of Thatcher recognising British Leyland were too big to fail.

Edited July 8, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Why do you think that?

Because throwing up barriers to trade while simultaneously aiming to become an export-led manufacturing economy seems like making hard work for yourself. 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Because throwing up barriers to trade while simultaneously aiming to become an export-led manufacturing economy seems like making hard work for yourself. 

Ahhh, okay. In essence you're right, it does make sense to be part of a bigger group. But as one of the leaders of innovation surely there's an opportunity to start providing the world with high quality British products? In our current 'competitive' environment, perhaps that's tougher while in the EU? The competition element has certainty impacted both our rural and coastal communities.

Quote

The Global Innovation Index ranks the innovation performance of 128 countries and economies around the world, based on 82 indicators. This edition explores the impact of innovation-oriented policies on economic growth and development.

Outside the EU, we could more easily enable British industry/innovation through collaborative ties between university, government and investors. Maybe we haven't been working hard enough in the past and Brexit will facilitate that much needed change?

I do wish we still had a Peter Shore to at least have some tough conversations.

Edited July 8, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[magnkarl]

4 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Why do you think that?

From my limited UK based perspective, I have always felt Germany's main advantage was an ability to deliver education because employment opportunities were sustainable through business partnership, specifically regional business.

In EU terms, our compliance to regulation appears more stringent than in Germany. Maybe because they have a historic approach that cannot be changed for the EU? because they don't see the point in complying? or because we're getting it wrong?

Two examples in housing. In Germany, local/regional builders are facilitated through strategic planning to be in a room with clients, clients then pick which developer builds the homes for them. They have joint mortgages, strategic land (and land tax which is v different from UK) and college linked industry training. Because of that they also have assured pipelines of work. This allows businesses to keep training staff and improving the quality of work relative to location. This then drives innovation.

Also, their Housing Associations do not use OJEU procurement which keeps costs lower and pipelines more sustainable.

It means regions can influence supply directly as well as guarantee and sustain local employment. I had a good chat to a German minister about it. 

Are we too worried about falling foul of competition law, or are we lazy?
It was a shame nobody had the answer when LDV and Rover were on their knees and it reminds me of Thatcher recognising British Leyland were too big to fail.

Germany is also a hell of a lot more devolved to regional authorities than we are over here. I guess this stems from before the unification but building laws can be completely different in say Hamburg where I used to live and Munich. Through 16 different counties doing things slightly differently they have found a great way to develop industry, young talent and innovation by always adapting to what works best. There's a reason why Germany is as productive as it is even though they are giving away more to the EU than anyone else. 

It probably also helps that 5 parties can influence politics over there and not just 2 like here, but that's for another day.  

 

[wazzap24]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

 

And finally - the M6 was made into a smart motorway a couple of years back on the stretch I use - it's much better - I mean, it's still the M6 and it's still horrible, but it's a lot better with four lanes than three - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when the work's done.

OT, but you can add the M5 to that as well. painful while the work was taking place, but it's soooo much better now. 

Plus, you get the inside lane to yourself a lot of the time, becuase now the 'for the love of McGrath, stay in the middle lane and do not move for anything' brigade are leaving two lanes free to their left! Slow is the new fast.