Webbo Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Without business there's no jobs in the private sector and no tax revenue to pay for jobs in the public sector. To pretend that the economy isn't the most important subject and somehow distasteful to discuss is disingenuous and a little bit high handed.
purpleronnie Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/police-chief-hugh-orde-tory-cuts-put-public-in-danger The Tories have cut the police budget by 26% since 2010 and are proposing another 20%.
Webbo Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/police-chief-hugh-orde-tory-cuts-put-public-in-danger The Tories have cut the police budget by 26% since 2010 and are proposing another 20%. Vested interests spreading scare stories to protect their privileges, nothing new.
SMX11 Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/police-chief-hugh-orde-tory-cuts-put-public-in-danger The Tories have cut the police budget by 26% since 2010 and are proposing another 20%. Yet they are proud of increasing 'international development'. This is what happens when you ringfence certain areas of public spending.
MooseBreath Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Crime is at its lowest level for decades. Doesn't seem like the cuts have caused any problems.
DB11 Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Crime is at its lowest level for decades. Doesn't seem like the cuts have caused any problems. Reported crime, maybe. I will bet that most people don't bother reporting it anymore as nothing will happen. In fact I bet the only people that report crime are those that need a reference number from the police for their insurance company.
Christoph Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Sorry but I'm not not having that someone would need two weeks convalescence due to teaching. I suppose we can only go off who we talk to, I know a few teachers, a couple say it's the hardest job in the World (although they have both only ever been teachers so I don't know how they compare) and a couple say it's fairly comfortable, it;s the older ones that seem to say it's more comfortable in my experience, maybe the young un's these days simply just can't hack it like the old boys do. I know marathon runners who have gone into work on a Tuesday after running it on the Sunday. Two weeks recovery is more than needed for the vast majority of operations or treatments, it's more than is needed for most jobs where people have suffered severe trauma killing someone or suffered an injury - it sounds absolutely pathetic to be honest, I wouldn't be able to control my laughter if someone said that to me about teaching kids. Should we give teachers an extra 6 weeks off a year for Easter Summer and Christmas in order to recover for the actual holiday? I have been working as an unqualified teacher for the last 2 and a 1/2 years and currently going through teacher training whilst also working full time. I think your analysis on working hours for teachers is a bit unfair in my opinion. A lot of older teachers are more comfortable because they have most of their lessons made and planned for. If you imagine your a new teacher, you have on average 4 or 5 lessons a day teaching and 3/4 hours a week during school hours that you do not teach. It takes on average 1 hour to make a good/outstanding lesson. That means if you're a new teacher and have to make a brand new lesson for each of the lessons your teaching, you'll be spending an extra 24 hours making lessons. This is on top of the time you're at work. Then assume you have 7 classes of 20 pupils a week that each have 3 lessons a week with you. This would make you responsible for lets say 140 children's books. Lets say it takes you 2 minutes per lesson in an individual pupil's book to read their work, mark it and make comments. You do this for all there work in their books. So on average it takes you around 6 minutes per pupil, per week to mark there books. 140 books x 6 minutes a week = 840 minutes = 14 hours a week. So if you're a new teacher that has just started teaching your hours would be: Teaching lessons = 21 hours Making lessons = 21 hours Marking books = 14 hours 56 hours a week which would put you on an 11 hour work day, monday to friday. Obviously if you're a more experienced teacher your not going to have to make lessons. But i've not even mentioned things like parents evening, exam preparation, admin as reports, inputting data and pupil progress sheets, making lessons plans and medium/long term plans etc. The government is constantly chopping and changing the curriculum and each year your probably have something else to deal with. I'm not going to make out like being a teacher is anymore stressful or as hard as other jobs. I'm sure being a surgeon or a frontline infantry man is very stressful. The problem with teaching is that for a lot of teachers it isn't a job but a vocation. So when you're very passionate about what you do and the people who work for you are undeveloped adults, it can be very stressful. Most of the job is fairly easy in comparison to other high skilled jobs. It isn't exactly hard making lessons or reports but it can be hard finding the time to do them. It takes someone with a lot of patience and dedication to help someone else's child that doesn't want to learn. Teachers get too much slack on this website and it kind of grinds me gears. So many people say its easy. But why aren't more people doing it? Who wouldn't want a job that finishes at 3:30 and has over 12 weeks holidays a year?
Strokes Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/police-chief-hugh-orde-tory-cuts-put-public-in-danger The Tories have cut the police budget by 26% since 2010 and are proposing another 20%. Fùck the police.
MooseBreath Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Reported crime, maybe. I will bet that most people don't bother reporting it anymore as nothing will happen. In fact I bet the only people that report crime are those that need a reference number from the police for their insurance company. Who knows. I'd definitely report it if I was a victim of crime.
BlueSi13 Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Seems to be some momentum now behind the idea of a Conservative-Labour coalition after the general election in order to freeze out the Scottish nationalists. Given the choice I'd be supportive of this idea. If they managed to get the second set of keys to Downing Street the SNP would do everything they could to weaken and undermine the UK culturally, politically and economically in order to ease the passage of separation via another referendum, (the idea quite frankly makes me shudder). Labour surely wouldn't allow this for the sake of making Ed Miliband Prime Minister for five years....surely?
lavrentis Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Just thinking about the situation Greece is in, perfect business situation for start ups in greece
bovril Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Just thinking about the situation Greece is in, perfect business situation for start ups in greece With a bunch of Commies in charge?!
Strokes Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Just thinking about the situation Greece is in, perfect business situation for start ups in greeceGood luck with that one
Webbo Posted 8 March 2015 Posted 8 March 2015 Just thinking about the situation Greece is in, perfect business situation for start ups in greece If you wait until/if they leave the Euro, property over there will be dirt cheap.
Alf Bentley Posted 9 March 2015 Posted 9 March 2015 Seems to be some momentum now behind the idea of a Conservative-Labour coalition after the general election in order to freeze out the Scottish nationalists. Given the choice I'd be supportive of this idea. If they managed to get the second set of keys to Downing Street the SNP would do everything they could to weaken and undermine the UK culturally, politically and economically in order to ease the passage of separation via another referendum, (the idea quite frankly makes me shudder). Labour surely wouldn't allow this for the sake of making Ed Miliband Prime Minister for five years....surely? I'd be astonished if there was anything other than media hot air behind the idea of a Con-Lab coalition. Labour will have seen what a coalition with the Tories did to the Lib Dems; they've also seen their support base in Scotland decimated through allying with the Tories to oppose Scottish independence. Then there's the small matter of policy. Labour believes in the benefits of public spending, some redistribution from rich to poor, slower deficit reduction, real investment to stimulate growth and constructive engagement with the EU. The Tories want savage public spending cuts, redistribution from the poor to the rich, accelerated austerity despite its failure to reduce the deficit adequately, an economy based on deregulated free markets and finance (well, that worked well in 2009, didn't it?!) and a showdown with the EU. Not a lot of common ground for a "grand coalition" there! Nah, I think Labour will give a swerve to the embrace of the vampire! The Tories have unbelievable gall to call for Labour to rule out a deal with the SNP. They spent years riding roughshod over the Scots when they had majority support in England, but hardly any MPs in Scotland. They used Scotland as an experimental laboratory for their hated poll tax and consistently opposed any devolution until it was a fait accompli, thereby fanning the flames of separatism. Meanwhile, Labour is set to pay a heavy price for actually leading the battle AGAINST the SNP to oppose Scottish independence. Labour opposes Scottish independence and supports the retention of nuclear weapons (rightly or wrongly); Sturgeon now seems to have backed down over Trident, anyway, plus there'd be a Con-Lab majority for Trident at Westminster. So, in the short-term, the price of SNP support in parliament would presumably be a generous devolution package, more public spending and less austerity. There's no way that Labour could go too far down that route, but a reasonable deal should be possible - and the SNP wouldn't be able to demand another independence referendum for a few years, at least. I can't imagine a Labour-SNP coalition (bad for both "brands") but a reasonable deal on "confidence and supply" support for a Labour minority government seems feasible. Of course, there'd be trouble if the SNP wanted lots of generous handouts for Scotland that weren't given to the rest of the UK - but Labour would have to be stupid to agree to that. Where you're right is that, in the medium-term, there'd be an in-built motive for the SNP to engineer a bust-up with Labour, so that they could win independence via a referendum. But they wouldn't be able to do that for several years. They'd also be crazy to ruin the economy (they're still dependent on it and would risk being blamed and losing support) - and incapable of damaging the UK culturally, as culture comes from the ground up (including from the Scottish ground), it's not created through government decree. No, the real issue is whether Cameron will rule out a deal with Farage! UKIP is quite clear: it wants a referendum, preferably within a year, to get the UK out of the EU. Half of the Tory party supports this aim, but in theory Cameron doesn't. He's offering a referendum, but claims that he'll negotiate such a great deal for Britain (despite his risible lack of influence) that he'll be supporting British membership of a reformed EU. So, in theory, within a year PM Cameron will be leading the "pro-EU" campaign, while Deputy PM Farage will be leading the "anti-EU" campaign, supported by half of Cameron's own party! That all looks a bit awkward, doesn't it? No wonder Cameron is desparate to chicken out of the Leaders' Debate to avoid awkward questions from Farage!
Fox in the North Posted 9 March 2015 Posted 9 March 2015 I have been working as an unqualified teacher for the last 2 and a 1/2 years and currently going through teacher training whilst also working full time. I think your analysis on working hours for teachers is a bit unfair in my opinion. A lot of older teachers are more comfortable because they have most of their lessons made and planned for. If you imagine your a new teacher, you have on average 4 or 5 lessons a day teaching and 3/4 hours a week during school hours that you do not teach. It takes on average 1 hour to make a good/outstanding lesson. That means if you're a new teacher and have to make a brand new lesson for each of the lessons your teaching, you'll be spending an extra 24 hours making lessons. This is on top of the time you're at work. Then assume you have 7 classes of 20 pupils a week that each have 3 lessons a week with you. This would make you responsible for lets say 140 children's books. Lets say it takes you 2 minutes per lesson in an individual pupil's book to read their work, mark it and make comments. You do this for all there work in their books. So on average it takes you around 6 minutes per pupil, per week to mark there books. 140 books x 6 minutes a week = 840 minutes = 14 hours a week. So if you're a new teacher that has just started teaching your hours would be: Teaching lessons = 21 hours Making lessons = 21 hours Marking books = 14 hours 56 hours a week which would put you on an 11 hour work day, monday to friday. Obviously if you're a more experienced teacher your not going to have to make lessons. But i've not even mentioned things like parents evening, exam preparation, admin as reports, inputting data and pupil progress sheets, making lessons plans and medium/long term plans etc. The government is constantly chopping and changing the curriculum and each year your probably have something else to deal with. I'm not going to make out like being a teacher is anymore stressful or as hard as other jobs. I'm sure being a surgeon or a frontline infantry man is very stressful. The problem with teaching is that for a lot of teachers it isn't a job but a vocation. So when you're very passionate about what you do and the people who work for you are undeveloped adults, it can be very stressful. Most of the job is fairly easy in comparison to other high skilled jobs. It isn't exactly hard making lessons or reports but it can be hard finding the time to do them. It takes someone with a lot of patience and dedication to help someone else's child that doesn't want to learn. Teachers get too much slack on this website and it kind of grinds me gears. So many people say its easy. But why aren't more people doing it? Who wouldn't want a job that finishes at 3:30 and has over 12 weeks holidays a year? I agree with everything you said there mate. I don't teach myself, but missus has only just started this year after graduating and I don't think she's actully stopped. There's so much out of hours work she does. Yes I agree that there are other roles such as surgeons etc that are more important but you certainly shouldn't knock the work that teachers put in.
bovril Posted 9 March 2015 Posted 9 March 2015 I've done quite a few jobs and teaching is probably the most exhausting. I agree with everything you said there mate. I don't teach myself, but missus has only just started this year after graduating and I don't think she's actully stopped. There's so much out of hours work she does. Yes I agree that there are other roles such as surgeons etc that are more important but you certainly shouldn't knock the work that teachers put in. Who taught the surgeons?
Fox in the North Posted 9 March 2015 Posted 9 March 2015 I've done quite a few jobs and teaching is probably the most exhausting. Who taught the surgeons? Very true
Strokes Posted 9 March 2015 Posted 9 March 2015 I'd be astonished if there was anything other than media hot air behind the idea of a Con-Lab coalition. Labour will have seen what a coalition with the Tories did to the Lib Dems; they've also seen their support base in Scotland decimated through allying with the Tories to oppose Scottish independence. Then there's the small matter of policy. Labour believes in the benefits of public spending, some redistribution from rich to poor, slower deficit reduction, real investment to stimulate growth and constructive engagement with the EU. The Tories want savage public spending cuts, redistribution from the poor to the rich, accelerated austerity despite its failure to reduce the deficit adequately, an economy based on deregulated free markets and finance (well, that worked well in 2009, didn't it?!) and a showdown with the EU. Not a lot of common ground for a "grand coalition" there! Nah, I think Labour will give a swerve to the embrace of the vampire! The Tories have unbelievable gall to call for Labour to rule out a deal with the SNP. They spent years riding roughshod over the Scots when they had majority support in England, but hardly any MPs in Scotland. They used Scotland as an experimental laboratory for their hated poll tax and consistently opposed any devolution until it was a fait accompli, thereby fanning the flames of separatism. Meanwhile, Labour is set to pay a heavy price for actually leading the battle AGAINST the SNP to oppose Scottish independence. Labour opposes Scottish independence and supports the retention of nuclear weapons (rightly or wrongly); Sturgeon now seems to have backed down over Trident, anyway, plus there'd be a Con-Lab majority for Trident at Westminster. So, in the short-term, the price of SNP support in parliament would presumably be a generous devolution package, more public spending and less austerity. There's no way that Labour could go too far down that route, but a reasonable deal should be possible - and the SNP wouldn't be able to demand another independence referendum for a few years, at least. I can't imagine a Labour-SNP coalition (bad for both "brands") but a reasonable deal on "confidence and supply" support for a Labour minority government seems feasible. Of course, there'd be trouble if the SNP wanted lots of generous handouts for Scotland that weren't given to the rest of the UK - but Labour would have to be stupid to agree to that. Where you're right is that, in the medium-term, there'd be an in-built motive for the SNP to engineer a bust-up with Labour, so that they could win independence via a referendum. But they wouldn't be able to do that for several years. They'd also be crazy to ruin the economy (they're still dependent on it and would risk being blamed and losing support) - and incapable of damaging the UK culturally, as culture comes from the ground up (including from the Scottish ground), it's not created through government decree. No, the real issue is whether Cameron will rule out a deal with Farage! UKIP is quite clear: it wants a referendum, preferably within a year, to get the UK out of the EU. Half of the Tory party supports this aim, but in theory Cameron doesn't. He's offering a referendum, but claims that he'll negotiate such a great deal for Britain (despite his risible lack of influence) that he'll be supporting British membership of a reformed EU. So, in theory, within a year PM Cameron will be leading the "pro-EU" campaign, while Deputy PM Farage will be leading the "anti-EU" campaign, supported by half of Cameron's own party! That all looks a bit awkward, doesn't it? No wonder Cameron is desparate to chicken out of the Leaders' Debate to avoid awkward questions from Farage! I'm getting subtle hints from your posts Alf that you won't be voting Tory at this election , who are you backing? I've seen you favour greens and labour but Im still unsure exactly what your position is.
Alf Bentley Posted 10 March 2015 Posted 10 March 2015 I'm getting subtle hints from your posts Alf that you won't be voting Tory at this election , who are you backing? I've seen you favour greens and labour but Im still unsure exactly what your position is. I'm not a member of any party, Strokes, though I was in the Labour Party a long time ago, before leaving in disillusionment at their over-cautious, centralising ways. I've mainly voted Labour in the past, a couple of times Lib Dem and Green. I plan to vote Green this time. That's not because I'd want them running the government....yet....as they're not ready for it, any more than UKIP are from the other wing. But there's no chance of that, anyway. The Greens will be lucky to get more than 1-2 MPs (possibly even none). But I agree with most of their main principles: e.g. climate change should be top of the agenda; quality of life should be a higher priority than ever more growth, consumption of resources, stress and materialism (I'm aware this is an unpopular view!); political & economic power should be decentralised; wealth redistributed to boost social cohesion/sense of community; electoral system reformed etc. That's despite disagreeing with some of their policies (e.g. nuclear power), thinking they're not fit to govern yet - and being unlikely to get on with Green Party members, as I'm a scruffy, beer-swilling, carnivorous male football fan, not a fragrant, earnest, middle-class vegetarian lady on a bicycle! I also think it would be good if the Greens got a decent % of the vote so as to give Labour a kick up the arse to move away from the "New Labour" agenda (free market capitalism but with a bit more safety net / public spending / redistribution than the Tories offer). The government after May will be led by either Labour or the Tories, probably with some degree of support from smaller parties. But in 5-10 years (maybe longer), I reckon that old party system will crumble. New parties might be formed, or smaller parties like the Greens and UKIP might become much bigger players. Where I vote (Leicester), Labour will win, anyway, as I live in one of the 85% or so of seats where the winner is already known, under our outdated, anti-democratic electoral system. I tend to defend Labour more on here than I would normally as the Tory/UKIP posters on here seem to be more active than the lefties, since Zingari retired (though there's a fair balance).
Stadt Posted 10 March 2015 Posted 10 March 2015 Would you ever vote Tory Alf? I'm not really sure why I'm asking but I could never see myself voting for Labour
MooseBreath Posted 10 March 2015 Posted 10 March 2015 I think it's a shame that both labour and the greens are going for the 'can't work, won't work' vote, the only difference being that labour know they need some credibility in terms of how they pay for it, whereas the greens have just gone for pie in the sky wackiness. Such a shame that there exists no left wing party that represents the ordinary working man, he who diligently carries out his responsibilities without relying on hand outs and without being driven by envy of those more financially successful. Come to think of it, scrap that, the tories pretty much tick those boxes.
Alf Bentley Posted 10 March 2015 Posted 10 March 2015 Would you ever vote Tory Alf? I'm not really sure why I'm asking but I could never see myself voting for Labour If I was in a constituency that was marginal between the Tories and the BNP, I would. Only in circumstances like that, I think. The French left ended up in that situation for a presidential election a few years back - the final round was between Sarkozy (mainstream right) and Le Pen (Front National), so all the lefties had to hold their nose and vote for Sarkozy.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.