-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
radioheadrule83
Banned
Sir Fragula said:
The police came to observe the last strike we had, and they said much the same thing - that they'd join us if they could.
Morale is taking a hit everywhere because of dubious implementation of the cuts for the most part.
Ineffectual salami slicing has been a problem for years, and now with all of these reviews, departments have had to argue their case for existence only to be judged by people who have no real low-level grasp of what's going on -- they are making high level decisions with high levels of ignorance and the net effect is that the middle management grades have to re-juggle their burdens and basically heap more and more work on their staff.
There've been staff sitting in 'redeployment' pools, waiting for new jobs or to be made redundant - not because they are untalented, but because the finance bods have manpower targets to reach, and in the time before they leave or move on, they are not being put to proper use. In spite of this, everyone I know at least, is doing an amazing job. The quality of the work we do in our department has suffered slightly, but we've all taken on more responsibility and are cranking out high levels of important work despite the huge pressures of all the ongoing change and uncertainty. I'm personally going to take a jump at the next voluntary redundancy scheme... I'm low graded, the pay isn't great and the perks aren't worth it. They are going to continue holding people back from achieving promotion, holding back pay, and eating away at accrued rights. Even when I worked for Barclaycard, who were the shittest most exploitative and ruthless employer I've ever had, I was happier than I am here.
StealthGoblin
Banned
It is an interesting tactic by the government to 'split' the potential strikers. Basically, they offer a golden carrot to the people who are nearest retirement, hoping that they won't strike and cause deep unrest and arguments among the rest of the bunch.
Still, the offer is bullshit. Public Sector workers have had a pay freeze in recent years, just as the shit hit the fan. Many of the public sector professions aren't paid enough for the work they do, for example teachers and nurses, the pension packet is the only real financial incentive for doing that work.
By the time I've finished my Masters Degree in Primary education (something the government wants all primary teachers to have ideally), this will be my situation if the current scheme gets through:
Approx - £30,000 in debt. (All student loans)
Paying off my student loans.
Paying more into my pension than I currently would do.
Unable to get on the property ladder, or properly start a family.
Retiring later than I initially thought (fair enough)
Working long hours, approx (8-6pm) due to planning, lesson planning, marking etc
Having to delicately balance a class of 31 with different nationalities, special educational
needs, and at different stages of educational development.
Michael Gove is fucking around the curriculum, Primary strategies etc, and I'll have to deal with the fallout from that.
Now, if the government was to value the hard work that teachers, nurses, firemen, police officers and give them more money for what they do, or realise that the pensions are the only real pay-off for these people. . .then we'd be in a better position.
I don't want much to be honest. I'd just like to be valued as much as the 'importance' of what I do. If I wanted a job solely for money, I wouldn't be a teacher, that's for sure.
Even if the economy does pick up, you just know that the Government will be slower to react and provide better pensions/pay than the private sector.
Still, the offer is bullshit. Public Sector workers have had a pay freeze in recent years, just as the shit hit the fan. Many of the public sector professions aren't paid enough for the work they do, for example teachers and nurses, the pension packet is the only real financial incentive for doing that work.
By the time I've finished my Masters Degree in Primary education (something the government wants all primary teachers to have ideally), this will be my situation if the current scheme gets through:
Approx - £30,000 in debt. (All student loans)
Paying off my student loans.
Paying more into my pension than I currently would do.
Unable to get on the property ladder, or properly start a family.
Retiring later than I initially thought (fair enough)
Working long hours, approx (8-6pm) due to planning, lesson planning, marking etc
Having to delicately balance a class of 31 with different nationalities, special educational
needs, and at different stages of educational development.
Michael Gove is fucking around the curriculum, Primary strategies etc, and I'll have to deal with the fallout from that.
Now, if the government was to value the hard work that teachers, nurses, firemen, police officers and give them more money for what they do, or realise that the pensions are the only real pay-off for these people. . .then we'd be in a better position.
I don't want much to be honest. I'd just like to be valued as much as the 'importance' of what I do. If I wanted a job solely for money, I wouldn't be a teacher, that's for sure.
Even if the economy does pick up, you just know that the Government will be slower to react and provide better pensions/pay than the private sector.
Speedymanic
Banned
So why are we even thinking/talking about giving the IMF more money? :x
StealthGoblin
Banned
Speedymanic said:
I reckon France/Germany are twisting our arms somehow. Boy George has said that the money won't be used to bail out EU countries, but it'll go via the IMF to bail out EU countries. Ridiculous.
BREAKING NEWS:
Labour have actually come up with an economic plan instead of just sniping everything the coalition does.
http://www.labour.org.uk/plan
Looks good enough, but my position stands. I refuse to vote for a party that has Ed Balls as it's economic driving force. Outright.
Labour have actually come up with an economic plan instead of just sniping everything the coalition does.
http://www.labour.org.uk/plan
Looks good enough, but my position stands. I refuse to vote for a party that has Ed Balls as it's economic driving force. Outright.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Galvanise_ said:
Where's Thatcher to tell them to fuck off when you need her...
Dave is too weak, he wants to be popular and make friends with the Europeans. Too much consensus not enough conviction. He needs to be strong, hold his ground and tell the EU to fuck off and fix their own problems.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
I count that as adding about £18bn to the deficit this year though the infrastructure spending is not clear and could be any figure really. The £2bn tax on bonuses wouldn't be used to reduce the deficit either, so yeah, £18bn.
That means £122bn this year turns into £140bn in the red and I expect the bond vigilantes would move in and we would start paying 3.5-4% interest on our bonds instead of the 2-2.5% we pay right now.
Terrible plan, seriously bad idea.
I'd imagine there's a team of economists and advisers employed by the government who have determined that the economic benefit of doing so outweighs the economic cost. No state is an island, not even an island-state...Speedymanic said:
Besides, unless I've completely misread what's happening (always a possibility) the money isn't being "given", it's being made available to loan.
EDIT: Above - show your working.
Just spent 10 minutes on the site, literally can't find anything more in-depth than those 5 points. Nothing about deficit reduction at all. Also, although their news feed is full of the same opposition sniping I've come to expect from Labour, constantly critical, never coming up with anything substantial of their own.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
What if the time ever came where we needed the EU's help? Or Germany's in particular or something? We don't exist and do business in a vacuum, as much as some of us would like to
PJV3
Member
The idea is the plan boosts growth which help reduce borrowing, we know labour have a defecit reduction policy, they just dont spell out exactly what will be cut. And frankly the coalition isn't going anywhere for 4 years so what's the point of bogging yourself down in detail, no opposition does that.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
radioheadrule83 said:
Yup, 50% of our exports are to the EU, it's better to be in and have a (pretty substantial) seat at the table than to be left out of a very powerful body. It's in our interests to help Europe out of it's hole, and thankfully we don't have to do as big a share of the digging as Germany and France. And we don't contribute as much to the EU as either of them, unless someone can show me statistics saying otherwise.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Sir Fragula said:EDIT: Above - show your working.
£12.5bn on reducing VAT to 17.5%.
£2.5bn on reducing VAT on home improvements to 5%, granted that is a back of the fag packet calculation, but since they haven't provided detail of the policy I assume they mean the widest possible net including construction and goods. If it's just goods then I would say £1bn.
£3bn on an NI holiday for employers.
Plus an unspecified amount on bringing forwards infrastructure projects.
The interest rate calculations are based on my knowledge of the debt markets and how they work. Widening the UK deficit to £140bn will spook investors and that meeting we have everyday where we come to same conclusion to buy Bunds, Gilts and Treasuries will become buy Bunds and Treasuries.
PJV3 said:
In what way would it boost growth? A VAT cut would drain away to China, Japan and Germany faster than you can say Bravia. Britain produces almost no consumer goods so raising it doesn't translate to direct job losses in production. The worst that can happen is a possible stagnation in retail jobs.
True though, with the fixed term Parliaments bill we are in for the long haul.
Anyway, if Labour aren't willing to spell out a single cut then they don't really have a deficit reduction plan.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
JonnyBrad said:
One of the perks of opposition is that in this stage of a term you can reveal and omit as much about your proposals as you like. The Conservatives enjoyed similar perks in opposition. They got onside with a wasteful war and approved of quite a few Labour initiatives or had rather similar ideas, then once the crisis hit they could say with 20:20 hindsight that they didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining and bitch about every single thing from thereon in.
Their proposal is immune to fuzzy math because its fuzzy math itself... an NI holiday for small businesses who take on new workers, and small businesses are defined how? How many new workers do you take on to qualify? Or is it pro rata relief?
They know for a fact the government isn't going to collapse tomorrow and give them a way into power, so they can talk this kind of shit up all they want and realistically, it doesn't really mean much. Not that one or two things might not be a good idea. I'm generally in favour of relief for poorer families and small businesses, especially businesses of the local variety, the ones that aren't necessarily big enough to be able to cope in times like these. I'm in favour of things that can, within reason, get people in a position where they're able to spend again too.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
radioheadrule83 said:
Well yes, but ... the big gaping hole with Labour is economic credibility, and if they don't get some come the next election they will have left the goal wide open. Particularly if the only proposals that they make that are anywhere near concrete simply involve spending more money that we haven't got. They spent 13 years doing that and it didn't do them any good. If they hide behind the benefit of opposition for too long they'll lose again.
radioheadrule83
Banned
There was an interview with Ed Milliband's main advisor after his last big speech and he basically acknowledged that he would have to build a real platform and define what the party is offering as the next election approached, but he seemed to quite frankly suggest that they weren't in a rush to do it now when they don't really know what the picture is going to look like in election year...
Let's face it, he could rail against certain government policies now and propose specific alternatives only to see the opposite of whatever he suggests becoming successful 3 years down the road. He could look quite daft. I don't like it but if they play it smart, which I'm sure they will, they'll be keeping an eye out for any huge divisive scandals and subjects likely to ignite moral outrage and they'll try to appeal to those most wounded by and sick of the current government as they approach election year. I do think they have a good chance of making people forget about the clusterfuck of the last few years of Blair/Brown and they'll try to reinvent themselves under Milliband, but I don't really think they've even begun to attempt to flesh out their plans yet..
Let's face it, he could rail against certain government policies now and propose specific alternatives only to see the opposite of whatever he suggests becoming successful 3 years down the road. He could look quite daft. I don't like it but if they play it smart, which I'm sure they will, they'll be keeping an eye out for any huge divisive scandals and subjects likely to ignite moral outrage and they'll try to appeal to those most wounded by and sick of the current government as they approach election year. I do think they have a good chance of making people forget about the clusterfuck of the last few years of Blair/Brown and they'll try to reinvent themselves under Milliband, but I don't really think they've even begun to attempt to flesh out their plans yet..
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thnikkaman said:
Sure. A lot of my family are in teaching and I have quite a bit of information about routes into it, as I considered most/all of them before I embarked on this perilous journey.
dalin80 said:
Without meaning to sound disrespectful, I'd expect the government to look after societies key workers to a better standard than a private company would. I'm doing absolutely everything right by Dave's standards. I save, I don't have any debt outside of my student loans, I'm giving back to society etc.
The most annoying thing in all of this is Michael Gove saying how terribly important teachers are, that we should be pushing for higher standards, that we have a tough job etc in the media, then he doesn't stand up for us in the government.
By the way, this new Curriculum that'll be coming in is going to turn things on its head. The entire Primary Framework will have to be re-written. The National Strategies for Numeracy and Literacy will be completely re-written. Add in the giant elephant in the room that is EAL students (English as an Additional Language), we have schools that are already ill equipped for things as they stand. The curriculum will put more pressure on teachers and schools because it looks like it'll provide more opportunities for parents to poke their nose in to frankly, what they do not understand.
Budget Cuts in schools means that TA's, LSA's and HILTA's will be cut. That means that with ONE IN FIVE children having special educational needs, the teachers will be under even more pressure to achieve even the same standards as we have now. With less assistance, we'll fail more students. It'll be all our fault of course.
A lot of teachers are already nearing breaking point. Doing over their only financial incentive for staying in the job really isn't wise. They'll have to increase annual salaries and unfreeze pay for other educational admin to compensate, but that won't happen.
Basically, for teachers, it amounts to:
- Do a lot more fucking work.
- Deal with an entirely new curriculum, PF and NF system.
- Deal with EAL students as best you can.
- Do a lot more marking in your own time.
- Work Longer (Age)
- Pay more
- Get less out
No other profession has their work as routinely fucked over as much as teachers do. Every time new government or government term begins, we are told we are shit, are failing, that everything needs to change, and some prick in a tie walks in and upturns all the tables.
I don't think there are many private sector professions that have to deal with as much shit as teachers do, that have their entire systems turned on their heads every 4-6 years, are continually told they are shit and still get paid fuck all for all the flak they take.
Bankers get the flak, but at least they can laugh it off with piles of cash.
Meanwhile the teachers are still marking work by the time Eastenders comes on the telly.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Thnikkaman said:Argh. Aarrgghh.
Tell me about it.
They won't cut subscription to educational software, because that is essential. They need the teachers.
The biggest drain on funds is staff. If you work in a school with approximately 90 pupils in a year (three form entry), then on average there'll be 2 teaching assistants for those 90 pupils. Those teaching assistants might not even be with that year group all day, every day. They might be required to work a day or two in a different year group.
So, 90 pupils:
1/5 of those will be SEN children, meaning that approximately 18 (6 per class) of those children could have anything from Downs Syndrome to being a genius for their age. When the TA's, LSA's and HILTA's are cut, those children are going to suffer. If the teacher spends a disproportionate amount of time catering to their needs via differentiation and one-on-one work, then the other 24 children in the class will suffer.
That doesn't even factor in the children in your class who don't speak English as their first language. Translators might be needed for Polish, Nigerian, Kenyan, Serbian etc. Teachers are responsible for planning their education too. Another drain on time and resources.
My biggest fear is that children's education will suffer. I didn't get into teaching for the politics of it all. I got into it to provide children with a fun, diverse and deep education. I'm a qualified pharmacologist, but teaching is where my heart is. I don't want politics to ruin it for the children, and part of that will be due to staff morale, numbers and availability.
Education Cuts haven't even started yet, but the mood is already on a downwards trend in the staff room. Its not going to be pretty.
The vast majority of Primary teachers are women, and many of them have families. The long, hard, working hours means that they are already stretched for time. Taking away more of their money and sodding around with their pension pot is going to leave a lot of them thinking:
What is the fucking point?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
On a general point about the EU bailout and Britain's role I think we are missing a trick.
Most people in Britain want out of a lot of EU regulation and the CAP/CFP. The only way the UK will achieve this is by buying our way there. I think it means Britain contributing to this bailout in a big way, maybe £250-300bn. We would then have a real say on the future of Europe and the future of our relationship with Europe. If we went to the EU and said "here's a bunch of money to save the continent, give us what we want" they would say yes. It would also sideline France in a big way, which is always good for a laugh, and it would strengthen Britain's position in Europe in terms of importance and in terms of getting things done our way.
Honestly, I don't see any other way around it right now. I know it's an insane amount of money to talk about, and the majority of it would end up in the hands of crooked French bankers (though we could specify no bank bailouts with EFSF money when negotiating), but what other alternatives are there?
We as a country need for the Eurozone to start bloody moving again and for the Euro to appreciate so that our competitiveness increases. We have a massive disadvantage in trade compared to Germany and basically the only way to solve the problem is to do it ourselves.
Think of it as a bribe to protect Britain's interests and sideline the French. Not the most palatable idea, but very effective. I think Cameron could even sell it to his party if he dressed it up as a glorified bribe.
Most people in Britain want out of a lot of EU regulation and the CAP/CFP. The only way the UK will achieve this is by buying our way there. I think it means Britain contributing to this bailout in a big way, maybe £250-300bn. We would then have a real say on the future of Europe and the future of our relationship with Europe. If we went to the EU and said "here's a bunch of money to save the continent, give us what we want" they would say yes. It would also sideline France in a big way, which is always good for a laugh, and it would strengthen Britain's position in Europe in terms of importance and in terms of getting things done our way.
Honestly, I don't see any other way around it right now. I know it's an insane amount of money to talk about, and the majority of it would end up in the hands of crooked French bankers (though we could specify no bank bailouts with EFSF money when negotiating), but what other alternatives are there?
We as a country need for the Eurozone to start bloody moving again and for the Euro to appreciate so that our competitiveness increases. We have a massive disadvantage in trade compared to Germany and basically the only way to solve the problem is to do it ourselves.
Think of it as a bribe to protect Britain's interests and sideline the French. Not the most palatable idea, but very effective. I think Cameron could even sell it to his party if he dressed it up as a glorified bribe.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Interesting thought zomgbbqftw (or may I call you zomg for short?). Can't help thinking that though it might sell to the Conservative party it might not sell to the electorate come next time round. Not with the flak that the opposition would throw around (along the lines of, with that much money we could pay teachers twice as much ...).
I think the price would have to be higher. For example, not just opting out of CAP/CFP but dismantling or downscaling them entirely. Subsidies should come local. Seems little point in the EU frowning on state aid if all that means is EU aid instead (with all the additional frictional losses that brings).
Alternatively, with that sort of injection could we just buy Greece and send the Labour Party over there to learn economics the hard way?
I think the price would have to be higher. For example, not just opting out of CAP/CFP but dismantling or downscaling them entirely. Subsidies should come local. Seems little point in the EU frowning on state aid if all that means is EU aid instead (with all the additional frictional losses that brings).
Alternatively, with that sort of injection could we just buy Greece and send the Labour Party over there to learn economics the hard way?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
zomg is perfectly fine!
You are overestimating the protestations from Labour. If Britain came to Europe's rescue I think Labour would back the measures. They may wrangle over the detail, but I don't expect they would campaign on "xx hostpitals and schools could have been built, but instead we saved the EU" since they believe the EU is great.
I think we could get the CFP dismantled and regain our waters, but the CAP would be an opt-out at best. It's not something the French would ever let go of, though with enough money I'm sure the Germans would side with us.
I think this has been the problem with the Britain's attitude with the EU for a long time, we need to bribe them to protect our interests if necessary. Labour handed over money with no negotiation and we became the laughing stock of the EU, giving over billions and accomplishing nothing. The Tories went to the other extreme and gave over nothing and stayed on the outside. Of course the latter is preferable of the two scenarios, but if we could achieve a lasting reform of the EU I think it could be worth it.
The other great part is that we could essentially print the money, use it to buy the EUR equivalent and then hand it over. We would weaken our currency and strengthen theirs, great success...
You are overestimating the protestations from Labour. If Britain came to Europe's rescue I think Labour would back the measures. They may wrangle over the detail, but I don't expect they would campaign on "xx hostpitals and schools could have been built, but instead we saved the EU" since they believe the EU is great.
I think we could get the CFP dismantled and regain our waters, but the CAP would be an opt-out at best. It's not something the French would ever let go of, though with enough money I'm sure the Germans would side with us.
I think this has been the problem with the Britain's attitude with the EU for a long time, we need to bribe them to protect our interests if necessary. Labour handed over money with no negotiation and we became the laughing stock of the EU, giving over billions and accomplishing nothing. The Tories went to the other extreme and gave over nothing and stayed on the outside. Of course the latter is preferable of the two scenarios, but if we could achieve a lasting reform of the EU I think it could be worth it.
The other great part is that we could essentially print the money, use it to buy the EUR equivalent and then hand it over. We would weaken our currency and strengthen theirs, great success...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Galvanise_ said:
Part of the point is, I think (and I don't mean to be rude here, after all Mrs Sheep is a teacher), that the teaching profession is over-protected. There are vast numbers out there who would be teaching if they could, but the qualifications expected (what - a Masters in primary education??) are outrageously expensive and time-consuming and mostly irrelevant (at anything below GCSE it is probably a disadvantage to your teaching skills to have a degree in the subject, since chances are that means that you never knew or don't remember what it is like to not understand the stuff you are teaching) and rather too full of cod-psychology and political correctness.
The private sector does very well, disproportionately well as everyone keeps complaining, without such restrictions. So why not lift them in the public sector? No reason except to make entry difficult (and the same thing is true of Law and other things as well, it's not just teaching).
And the treatment of those who take the teaching assistant route in some schools is appalling - they're doing pretty well all the work of teachers but sneered at, not allowed access to the staff room and so on. Snobbery of the worst sort.
And teachers get all that and then go on strike?
Sorry. That's a bit of a tangential slant to your post rather than a deliberate riposte, but hey - I'd love to be out there teaching (and I've done some, private sector and privately) but I can't take any more time or money out to take yet another degree on top of the ones I've already got.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
zomgbbqftw said:
See what you're saying, but you might want to expand on/explain that particular line for the benefit of others reading ... as in explaining why that is a good thing (and it would probably come better from you rather than from me!).
I agree wholeheartedly that this is our best point for lasting reform though. And what an opportunity! I'm guessing Merkel would be onside at least and that might be nearly enough to carry it. Do we actually need France to agree? I lost track of the numbers last time the EU expanded - must rummage a bit.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
phisheep said:
Of course. The Bank prints £250bn, buys the corresponding amount of bonds basically handing over the cash to the Treasury. The Treasury then stars buying up EUR and floods the market with GBP causing the EUR to appreciate and GBP to depreciate. That in turn helps our exporters because their goods are now cheaper internationally.
We probably could carry the rest of the EU if we wanted to give the French a kicking. France obviously have their Veto, but if they used it and rejected our money which would precipitate the fall of the EMU they would be on a hiding to nothing within the EU.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
phisheep said:
That's the general idea. I think if we started getting our way on trade issues we could form a very good partnership with Germany, Sweden and Finland and sideline the French for good.
It would require a big change in our relationship with the EU, but if we could get France out of the running I think you could get a majority of people to back a new relationship with the EU in which we took a leading role.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, I can see some logic behind that (and I've spent enough time doing business in Germany and Scandinavia and France and a few others to get a feel of it). But I think you maybe being a bit cavalier about France. Because it isn't a question of whether France is in or out (of whatever it is and to whatever extent), it is a question of if France is out, what the hell are they going to do next? And that, like their Rugby team, is a bit unpredictable.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I'm not suggesting chucking France out of the EU, just remove them from a leading role by getting the Germans and Scandinavians on our side to put a larger emphasis on trading and less on agricultural subsidies.
They can do whatever they want afterwards.
They can do whatever they want afterwards.
To be perfectly honest, I have never heard of any actual cases of snobbery like this. Even on work experience at Preston Primary School (which is tiny) and being a pupil elsewhere I never really witnessed anything like that. It actually happens?phisheep said:
Anyway, the whole routes into teaching seem so complicated. I understand I need a bachelor degree and a PGCE but the degree subject has to be what I'll teach, right? God help me. Also there are the three levels of TA training to consider...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thnikkaman said:
On the snobbery stuff, I've seen it in three different schools in three different parts of the UK. To be fair, they are all smallish schools and the problem appears to be localised. But on the other hand, there's something of the same flavour in
Galvanise_ said:
When? There's an assumption there that it is the TA's, LSA's, HILTA's etc that are going to be cut and not the Teachers. Why is that?
Yes, it actually happens.
The complexity of routes into teaching stuff seems very strange to me. Can't see any reason you should need a degree in the subject you are teaching unless you are teaching at A-Level or above. What you need is enough competence in the subject (way below degree level) enough interest in the subject (way above many people who have degrees in it) enough interest in teaching people (rare) and enough patience/skill/technique to do it and sustain it.
I've successfully taught (and by that I mean good exam results, satisfied excited and curious pupils and homework done enthusiatically and on time) physics, maths, sociology, genetics, literary criticism, music and computing - none of which I have degrees in. Add into that the four subjects I do have a degree in and I should be a snap-up for any school, but I don't reach the first stage of selection which is a PGCE which I can't afford to do. Bonkers.
Again, just to stress the point, this is not a go at you personally by any means. It is a go at those members/spokesmen of the teaching profession who whine to the press that most teachers don't have relevant degrees (which is rank protectionism) and at those in the government who sustain the idea that you need a year-long classroom course in cod-psychology to be 'qualified' to teach (which is just nuts). I guess the unions have something to do with it as well, but I'm not close enough to tell for sure.
EDIT: Oh bother. Just realised that you are not the person I originally responded to! Oh well, the points still stand, it just feels strange that I wasn't talking to who I thought I was talking to. Edited post to reflect that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thnikkaman said:I thought I had said something really stupid for a while, there. Maybe I should reconsider posting here among people who actually know what they're talking about.
I can only apologise again (I have a private policy to not take down posts so that my - I hope occasional - stupidity gets recorded).
It's too early in the morning, that's what I blame, Gotta blame something. I just edited my post to make that clear. Don't reconsider posting on that account, it's my fault, not yours.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
avaya said:
Why? Is it good that the EU spends nearly 50% of its annual budget on agricultural subsidies that locks out poor farmers from the third world? Is it good that the fisheries policy has caused UK waters to dwindle so far that seaside towns are no longer producing any fish?
Reshaping the EU so that it is more open and ready to trade freely is the best thing we can do. If that means handing over £250-300bn to save their currency, so be it. It's not only in our interest it is in the interest of the EU. A modern organisation that spends as much as it does on agricultural subsidies is going to get left behind, the EU needs to spend more on development and research. If Britain can drag the EU into the modern ages I think we should. It would benefit everyone in the organisation as the EU became a commercial and research centre of excellence.
Let's just remember that Anglo-Saxon economics (i.e. that by Britain, Germany and Austria) is the most advanced in the world. Britain is one of a handful of countries that is reducing its deficit outright while still maintaining economic growth. There are many in the world who think this feat is not possible.
I don't get why you don't like the idea of having Britain take a leading role on the future of Europe instead of France. I would prefer Anglo-German to Franco-German hegemony for the next 50 years.
Z
ZombieFred
Unconfirmed Member
zomgbbqftw said:
Got to agree here. I would rather have more influence across the whole of Europe than have less, and to do that we need to earn the right and trust to do so. We, Britain, always soldiered on as a nation, and I believe we can go still go through strong on the IMF increases to keep Europe going, in the national interest if it means more in our favour. Plus its always a bonus to kick the French in the nuts. ,
I don't think any of this is quite as simple as zomg makes out, there are a lot more factors at play than just telling France to fuck off and getting into bed with Germany/Scandinavia. Let's not forget that one of our biggest trading partners, and one of the few countries that we have a trade surplus over is Ireland.
Speedymanic
Banned
0.5% growth isn't much to shout about.