Cameron in Germany

basically, told them to stick the Euro up their arses..

nice work

Excellent.

Now send Hague over on a charm offensive to finish the job.

I loved how he mentioned our veto. It's great to have a leader that gives the Europeans the two fingers.

Good effort.

Ha ha, just listened to it on the news, and loved it.

Isn't it amazing how just a few days after David Cameron became PM everyone is feeling so much more upbeat and positive.

After 13 miserable years of Socialism it's like a big cloud has been lifted.

Isn't it amazing how just a few days after David Cameron became PM everyone is feeling so much more upbeat and positive.

 

After 13 miserable years of Socialism it's like a big cloud has been lifted.

Speak for yourself Stanley.

I'm not sure public service workers and people who use services share your happiness.

Isn't it amazing how just a few days after David Cameron became PM everyone is feeling so much more upbeat and positive.

 

After 13 miserable years of Socialism it's like a big cloud has been lifted.

I must have missed the "socialism" element of noo-labour, probably blinked at the wrong moment

I'm not sure public service workers share your happiness.

Good. Both them and their unions need shaking up and brought in line with the private sector.

Good. Both them and their unions need shaking up and brought in line with the private sector.

Let the people who need the services suffer then Stanley?

Let the people who need the services suffer then Stanley?

no matter who came to power, this was going to happen...you should blame the sickening spending spree of the last decade

Let the people who need the services suffer then Stanley?

The reason there has to be cuts is because your dopey Labour lot spent all the money.

no matter who came to power, this was going to happen...you should blame the sickening spending spree of the last decade

Ok lets make the most needy and poor pay as they were to blame for the financial crisis rather than the bankers etc

Ok lets make the most needy and poor pay as they were to blame for the financial crisis rather than the bankers etc

if you think they are the only ones paying then you are mental..

clearly mental

every part of our lives is going to be cut back..no matter who came to power, this was going to happen..

being in the forces, we see this all the time..even when the country was throwing money around, they still cut the forces back..

again, you should look at those who went on a sickening spending spree for 10 years...selling everything was had left right and centre along the way

Ok lets make the most needy and poor pay as they were to blame for the financial crisis rather than the bankers etc

Why was there no money in the kitty before the crisis? Why did Brown run a budget deficit throughout the good times? Why did Brown sell our gold when advised not to?

You cannot get away from the fact that we entered the recession skint and the fault for that lies with the stupid Labour party.

The reason there has to be cuts is because your dopey Labour lot spent all the money.

Nothing to do with bankers then Stanley?

Ok lets make the most needy and poor pay as they were to blame for the financial crisis rather than the bankers etc

The poor and needy unforunately often fall victim to the machinations of bad government, especially when the result is high inflation affecting their income from savings. And presumably, this current crisis is all the fault of those nasty bankers, unless you include the Government under the convenient umbrella of "etc". Do you include the Government as deserving of blame? It seems to me that you are trying to absolve them of blame, or at least to lessen it.

Nothing to do with bankers then Stanley?

So why hadn't Brown legislated to prevent the crisis?

Ok lets make the most needy and poor pay as they were to blame for the financial crisis rather than the bankers etc

So you be support the raising of the tax threashold then?

Why with 13 years of power didn't Labour do the same, and will they be supporting the measure when it goes through parliament?

if you think they are the only ones paying then you are mental..

clearly mental

 

every part of our lives is going to be cut back..no matter who came to power, this was going to happen..

 

being in the forces, we see this all the time..even when the country was throwing money around, they still cut the forces back..

 

again, you should look at those who went on a sickening spending spree for 10 years...selling everything was had left right and centre along the way

Are you having a pay free freeze in the forces then?

Please explain who is going to replace public service workers who leave when we are already struggling to recruit skilled workers in this country. Will it be more people from other countries who you Tories dislike so much?

Are you having a pay free freeze in the forces then?

 

Please explain who is going to replace public service workers who leave when we are already struggling to recruit skilled workers in this country. Will it be more people from other countries who you Tories dislike so much?

pay freeze..? dont know...would not surprise me..but I bet if we do you will hear about 0.01% of service people moan about it...

again, this was going to happen no matter who is in charge...you should thank those in charge for the last 10 years for that..and selling off all the gold.

Please explain who is going to replace public service workers who leave

They won't be replaced....one way of cutting the deficit without sacking people.

Those of you who think that only 'admin' will be cut need to think again.

I recently retired from a job as an administrator to a service that provides advice and treatment to people with COPD. This service consists of nurses who go out to visit patients in their homes, usually because they are too unwell to get to a GP / hospital. This service also relieves the pressure on GPs in that they don't have to make home visits and organises the supply of a home oxygen service.

I left for personal reasons but I know for a fact that I haven't been replaced. Instead, one of the nurses is having to do the work I did.

This means there is one less (front line) nurse to work in an already overstretched service.

Are you having a pay free freeze in the forces then?

 

Please explain who is going to replace public service workers who leave when we are already struggling to recruit skilled workers in this country. Will it be more people from other countries who you Tories dislike so much?

Could you be perhaps less vague as to what your point is? Presumably you are referring to the public sector workers who might be made redundant in the event of cuts in public services. But I fail to see how you make the connection with the skilled workers shortage. If those public sector workers have skills which are in demand, then it seems likely that they will be able to find employment in the private sector, or they will retrain.

And just to put the opposite spin on your assertion that the Tories dislike more people coming in from other countries, does it conversely follow that the other parties really like having people coming in from other countries? Labour introduced Immigration controls which restrict the inflow to those deemed to be needed by the country for their skills through a points system. Do Labour only dislike those coming in from other countries without skills? I do not see that the policy objectives of the other parties varies much from that position.

Whilst you're answering that one, perhaps you'll also answer the question I asked you earlier; do you hold the government partly to blame alongside the bankers for the financial crisis that renders these cuts necessary?

Could you be perhaps less vague as to what your point is? Presumably you are referring to the public sector workers who might be made redundant in the event of cuts in public services. But I fail to see how you make the connection with the skilled workers shortage. If those public sector workers have skills which are in demand, then it seems likely that they will be able to find employment in the private sector, or they will retrain.

 

And just to put the opposite spin on your assertion that the Tories dislike more people coming in from other countries, does it conversely follow that the other parties really like having people coming in from other countries? Labour introduced Immigration controls which restrict the inflow to those deemed to be needed by the country for their skills through a points system. Do Labour only dislike those coming in from other countries without skills? I do not see that the policy objectives of the other parties varies much from that position.

 

Whilst you're answering that one, perhaps you'll also answer the question I asked you earlier; do you hold the government partly to blame alongside the bankers for the financial crisis that renders these cuts necessary?

One in six doctors and nurses and one in 10 teachers plan to move abroad amid fears of spending cuts and pay freezes in the public sector, a survey reveals today.

An opinion poll shows that 16% of employees in the health sector and 12% of teachers say they will leave over the next five years – driven in part by deteriorating prospects in the public sector. A third of those who would move cited tax increases and another third cited better job prospects.

Unions said Britain could be put in the absurd position of hiring staff from abroad to fill the gaps. "We have seen it in social work and health care where shortages have been filled by scouring the world for workers," said a Unison spokeswoman.

Stephen Hughes, director of Foreign Currency Direct, which commissioned the poll, said the results were not surprising given the "prospect of wide ranging cuts in the public sector". Favoured destinations included New Zealand and Australia.

The survey echoes warnings by experts that the scale of public sector cuts had been hidden during the election campaign and that there was deep unease in the ranks. Last month the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said more than 500,000 public sector jobs could be cut in the next five years.

The jobs cull – nearly 10% of the 5.8m public sector workforce – would dwarf anything in the election manifestos. The institute said it was unlikely that pay cuts and short-time working could achieve savings for the Treasury.

Mike Emmott, the institute's employee adviser, said nearly 20% of public sector workers now thought they could lose their job compared with 7% a year ago. And almost 40% say their organisation is planning redundancies.

In addition, public sector workers are braced for an end to generous final salary pensions, after the government said it would establish an independent review of their "long-term affordability".

The coalition document spelled out that while existing rights would be protected, future retirement benefits were likely to be less generous.

The decision is likely to amplify grievances among civil servants, who went on strike in March over efforts to reduce redundancy payouts. Last week the Public and Commercial Services Union won a high court action to halt that measure, suggesting the coalition government's plan could also face legal challenges.

Teachers said a change to pensions could erode the considerable progress in improving recruitment. John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Changes should not affect people over the age of 50, otherwise there will be a risk of a mass exodus".

Martin Freedman, pensions expert for ATL, said: "There are already more teachers taking early retirement than there were five years ago."

move where ANS...europe is on the verge of collapse...probably better off here..thanks to not being inthe euro (which im sure you thought we should have joined)

again, all this is worse thanks to the spending spree of the last decade..something YOU wont acknowledge....?

move where ANS...europe is on the verge of collapse...probably better off here..thanks to not being inthe euro (which im sure you thought we should have joined)

 

again, all this is worse thanks to the spending spree of the last decade..something YOU wont acknowledge....?

More than 165,000 UK nationals had emigrated last year by September.

This year's yet-to-be published Brits Abroad report by the Institute for Public Policy Research will show most Britons now emigrating are highly skilled, although the net loss of such workers seems to be decreasing. Work, lifestyle and adventure are listed as the three main reasons for emigrating, although many of those moving for the latter two reasons will also be working.

Lands of plenty

South Australia Thriving on the back of a boom based on rich natural resources. Adelaide may lack the bright lights of Sydney or Melbourne but has an enviable quality of life. in a 2007 poll of the world's seventh- most liveable cities. , it remains inexpensive. Engineers, quantity surveyors and accountants in short supply. Climate: Mediterranean. Hot summers, cool to mild winter. Economic outlook: Holds a treasured triple-A credit rating. On course for a continued boom.

Alberta, Canada Backwoods image but immigrants make up a large part of a rising population of 3.6 million. Bottom end of the labour market has tightened but skills go a long way. Need for police officers and health care professionals. Possibility of becoming a citizen within three years. UK credentials often readily accepted. Climate: Warm in summer, with cool evenings. Cold winters and heavy snowfall. Economic outlook: In a downturn but expected to rebound strongly next year on the back of oil prices and construction.

Qatar Rapidly becoming the Gulf state of choice for expats seeking a quieter, family-orientated alternative to Dubai. Strong banking sector is pulling in financial workers. Though many expats prefer the more liberal environments of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, where the employment laws are also less stringent, Qatar offers certainty. Climate: Hot and sunny every day and sweltering in summer. Rain is rare. Economic outlook: One of the fastest-growing countries in the region.

Hamilton, New Zealand The butt of jokes from other Kiwis, this North Island city is becoming a popular choice. Pastoral farming, horse breeding and food processing are major industries. Some of NZ's best wines made here. Despite being in recession for 18 months, NZ has a skills shortages and is consistently rated by UK expats as the best place in the world to live in terms of quality of life, standard of living and costs. Climate: Temperate and damp. High rainfall. Warm summers. Economic outlook: A bit uncertain, but forecast for recovery this year.

More than 165,000 UK nationals had emigrated last year by September.

 

This year's yet-to-be published Brits Abroad report by the Institute for Public Policy Research will show most Britons now emigrating are highly skilled, although the net loss of such workers seems to be decreasing. Work, lifestyle and adventure are listed as the three main reasons for emigrating, although many of those moving for the latter two reasons will also be working.

 

 

 

Lands of plenty

 

South Australia Thriving on the back of a boom based on rich natural resources. Adelaide may lack the bright lights of Sydney or Melbourne but has an enviable quality of life. in a 2007 poll of the world's seventh- most liveable cities. , it remains inexpensive. Engineers, quantity surveyors and accountants in short supply. Climate: Mediterranean. Hot summers, cool to mild winter. Economic outlook: Holds a treasured triple-A credit rating. On course for a continued boom.

 

Alberta, Canada Backwoods image but immigrants make up a large part of a rising population of 3.6 million. Bottom end of the labour market has tightened but skills go a long way. Need for police officers and health care professionals. Possibility of becoming a citizen within three years. UK credentials often readily accepted. Climate: Warm in summer, with cool evenings. Cold winters and heavy snowfall. Economic outlook: In a downturn but expected to rebound strongly next year on the back of oil prices and construction.

 

 

Qatar Rapidly becoming the Gulf state of choice for expats seeking a quieter, family-orientated alternative to Dubai. Strong banking sector is pulling in financial workers. Though many expats prefer the more liberal environments of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, where the employment laws are also less stringent, Qatar offers certainty. Climate: Hot and sunny every day and sweltering in summer. Rain is rare. Economic outlook: One of the fastest-growing countries in the region.

 

Hamilton, New Zealand The butt of jokes from other Kiwis, this North Island city is becoming a popular choice. Pastoral farming, horse breeding and food processing are major industries. Some of NZ's best wines made here. Despite being in recession for 18 months, NZ has a skills shortages and is consistently rated by UK expats as the best place in the world to live in terms of quality of life, standard of living and costs. Climate: Temperate and damp. High rainfall. Warm summers. Economic outlook: A bit uncertain, but forecast for recovery this year.

People fleeing Labour's high tax regime. You produce an argument against yourself.

And you didn't say whether Labour like people coming in from abroad. Or is their position the same as that held by the Conservatives, rendering your assertion that the Conservatives dislike people from abroad as pure cant.

People fleeing Labour's high tax regime. You produce an argument against yourself.

 

And you didn't say whether Labour like people coming in from abroad. Or is their position the same as that held by the Conservatives, rendering your assertion that the Conservatives dislike people from abroad as pure cant.

Australian Tax Rates

The current tax-free threshold is $6,000, and the highest marginal rate for individuals is 45%. In addition, most Australians are liable to pay the Medicare levy, of which the standard is 1.5% of taxable income

Canadian Tax Rates

Federal rates range from 15 - 29% but on top of that there are Provincial tax rates - Alberta's is 10% of taxable income

Qatar Tax Rates

range from 10 - 35%

New Zealand Tax rates

14 -47% (including ACC which is an 'accident' levy - sort of insurance I guess)

I don't know what, if any, charges are applied for healthcare in Canada, Qatar and NZ.

It seems to me that these rates are comparable to the UK.

I have far too much time on my hands

Australian Tax Rates

The current tax-free threshold is $6,000, and the highest marginal rate for individuals is 45%. In addition, most Australians are liable to pay the Medicare levy, of which the standard is 1.5% of taxable income

 

Canadian Tax Rates

 

Federal rates range from 15 - 29% but on top of that there are Provincial tax rates - Alberta's is 10% of taxable income

 

Qatar Tax Rates

range from 10 - 35%

 

New Zealand Tax rates

14 -47% (including ACC which is an 'accident' levy - sort of insurance I guess)

 

I don't know what, if any, charges are applied for healthcare in Canada, Qatar and NZ.

 

It seems to me that these rates are comparable to the UK.

 

I have far too much time on my hands

If you were a top rate taxpayer over here, none of those rates is as high as our 50%. And if you wish to expand it to include insurance towards health costs, then we have to pay towards that through the NI contribution. Also we have to pay for local Council services through Council tax, so that if one considers those additional costs from other countries, they also need to be brought into the equation here too in the interests of balance.

But the figures provided by AndyNorthernSaints illustrate all too clearly that Labour's high tax regime is a disincentive for people with skills to stay here as wealth creators and entrepreneurs.

If you were a top rate taxpayer over here, none of those rates is as high as our 50%. And if you wish to expand it to include insurance towards health costs, then we have to pay towards that through the NI contribution. Also we have to pay for local Council services through Council tax, so that if one considers those additional costs from other countries, they also need to be brought into the equation here too in the interests of balance.

 

But the figures provided by AndyNorthernSaints illustrate all too clearly that Labour's high tax regime is a disincentive for people with skills to stay here as wealth creators and entrepreneurs.

Yes you're right of course about other taxes. I didn't get as far as looking at purchase taxes (equivalent to our VAT). I don't think ANS stated that it's the tax rates that encourage people to emigrate. In fact I think he said it was the lifestyles that were appealing - and the weather!

We've often said how we'd like to live in NZ and I have friends who have made that move. However, we love this country too much to move.

Not so long ago I watched one of those programmes about people thinking about moving down under. When some of them did their sums they realised that, although property prices were comparitively cheaper and salaries about the same, their cost of living would be much higher due to taxes and food costs and that the weather / climate wouldn't make up for being worse off.

Nothing to do with bankers then Stanley?

Andy...nothing to do with greedy individuals wanting everything on tick, wanting 'investment' flats that they can rent out and make a stack of cash 'because property prices are going through the roof' (oh)?

Sure, some banks have a lot to answer for, but in the end there's that small thing that seems to be missing from modern society.....personal responsibility.

It's not always somebody elses fault. Sometimes people have to say 'yep, my fault, I screwed up'. Everyone is always looking for someone else to blame.

Andy...nothing to do with greedy individuals wanting everything on tick, wanting 'investment' flats that they can rent out and make a stack of cash 'because property prices are going through the roof' (oh)?

 

Sure, some banks have a lot to answer for, but in the end there's that small thing that seems to be missing from modern society.....personal responsibility.

 

It's not always somebody elses fault. Sometimes people have to say 'yep, my fault, I screwed up'. Everyone is always looking for someone else to blame.

does that include everyone who is out of work, ill, old etc?

I think you'll find I wasn't referring to absolutely everyone as being responsible, and I suspect you know that (or you're completely thick, which I'm sure isn't the case).

Whilst we're here, can you spell out to me what you feel a 'greedy banker' is please?

Isn't it amazing how just a few days after David Cameron became PM everyone is feeling so much more upbeat and positive.

 

After 13 miserable years of Socialism it's like a big cloud has been lifted.

New Labour was not a socialist government. Repeat: New Labour was not a socialist government.

does that include everyone who is out of work, ill, old etc?

The inference you make is that people who are out of work or who are old, are completely helpless to have done anything to change their position. Whereas there are many for whom that might hold true, conversely there are many who are out of work because they lack skills that employers want or need. If they bunked off school, gained no qualifications and are only capable of doing manual work, then to an extent they are to blame for their own personal circumstances and should accept that competition for work is greater to those who are less qualified, especially against those coming in from Eastern Europe.

For the elderly, then again, many could or should have made some provision towards their old age in the form of pensions and savings. Granted that high inflation caused by poor government has often eroded the value of those savings and there is no incentive anyway when the government would attempt to force the elderly to sell their homes to pay for care.

The sick or disabled are entirely another matter and a caring government should make provision to help them towards having some comfort and dignity.

The inference you make is that people who are out of work or who are old, are completely helpless to have done anything to change their position. Whereas there are many for whom that might hold true, conversely there are many who are out of work because they lack skills that employers want or need. If they bunked off school, gained no qualifications and are only capable of doing manual work, then to an extent they are to blame for their own personal circumstances and should accept that competition for work is greater to those who are less qualified, especially against those coming in from Eastern Europe.

 

For the elderly, then again, many could or should have made some provision towards their old age in the form of pensions and savings. Granted that high inflation caused by poor government has often eroded the value of those savings and there is no incentive anyway when the government would attempt to force the elderly to sell their homes to pay for care.

 

The sick or disabled are entirely another matter and a caring government should make provision to help them towards having some comfort and dignity.

That's my point though. Cuts in the public sector do have an impact of people who are in need of support. Reduced numbers of workers, low staff morale, people leaving and not being replaced. I think most people will accept a pay freeze for a year as most of us only ever get a 1% pay increase anyway. If pensions are affected then there will be trouble and people will not accept that without a fight.

A Conservative government was in power when the community care act came in 1990 which was all very good on paper but resulted in a provider/purchaser split with private care agencies taking over from local authority staff. Cheaper agency carers saved money but have not provided the same level of care from experienced skilled staff who although low paid did the job because they wanted to work/care with people.

I agree there are too many people who don't want to work in this country but there are alot that can't work due to illness/disability/carer role etc cuts in education and places at university will not help.

Anyway i've got to get back to finishing my 4 year part time Uni degree which i hope will get me a better and more secure job.

That's my point though. Cuts in the public sector do have an impact of people who are in need of support. Reduced numbers of workers, low staff morale, people leaving and not being replaced. I think most people will accept a pay freeze for a year as most of us only ever get a 1% pay increase anyway. If pensions are affected then there will be trouble and people will not accept that without a fight.

 

A Conservative government was in power when the community care act came in 1990 which was all very good on paper but resulted in a provider/purchaser split with private care agencies taking over from local authority staff. Cheaper agency carers saved money but have not provided the same level of care from experienced skilled staff who although low paid did the job because they wanted to work/care with people.I agree there are too many people who don't want to work in this country but there are alot that can't work due to illness/disability/carer role etc cuts in education and places at university will not help.

 

Anyway i've got to get back to finishing my 4 year part time Uni degree which i hope will get me a better and more secure job.

And looking at a contrasting scenario regarding Nurses is enlightening. As employees directly of the NHS, they are often overworked and underpaid. Historically, Governments have relied on their sense of vocation to get away with this. But where there are acute shortages of nurses, agency Nurses are brought in, whose pay levels are higher and whose working hours are more flexible. And so there is an incentive for Nurses to leave NHS employment and to sign on as agency nurses, determining for themselves the hours that they are prepared to work, but surely costing the NHS more than if it had paid their own Nurses a decent wage for shorter hours.

I hope that you do indeed gain your university degree and consequently get a better and more secure job. I had paid my taxes from the age of 16, so resented the introduction of tuition fees when my children went to university. At the level of debt that is incurred nowadays, it is a disincentive to go to university if one is to be paying off the debt for several years afterwards. It is incredibly short-sighted of the Labour Government anyway, as it did not take account of the fact that with a decent degree, better jobs would be possible to those with degrees and therefore better pay, therefore higher taxation which would pay for the Country's investment in the university education.

Instead, we have a situation whereby it is too easy for people to get into university, too many coming away with degrees in subjects that are considered irrelevant to employers, who also consider the degrees to be devalued currency anyway when there are long lines of applicants with these degrees. The post-graduate students then find that not only is the degree considered to have less value than they hoped, but that they will be paying for it for several years to come.

That's my point though. Cuts in the public sector do have an impact of people who are in need of support. Reduced numbers of workers, low staff morale, people leaving and not being replaced. I think most people will accept a pay freeze for a year as most of us only ever get a 1% pay increase anyway. If pensions are affected then there will be trouble and people will not accept that without a fight.

The reason there has to be cuts is because of 13 years of a Labour government riddling the country with debt.

As for pensions who was it that took £150 billion out of them?

I can't disagree with any of the above really, Wes. You're absolutely right about the situation with regard to nurses and their agencies although a lot of work has been done to drive down the rates the agencies charge.

I think you're right about universities too. My children were fortunate in that their 'grants' were based on my salary alone (as I was divorced) and so they all got quite significant amounts which helped them.

I think employers recognise the 'good' universities but also I think they appreciate that the subject is often irrelevant - it's the self-discipline required to get the degree that is also important.

I also think, for example, that MBAs are becoming devalued now, with the increasing availability of colleges offering them.

New Labour was not a socialist government. Repeat: New Labour was not a socialist government.

Listen to any of the new Tory front-benchers being interviewed and count the number of times they use prefix "modern progressive" before mentioning "conservative". Francis Maude was on R4 this morning, and I swear he got it into double figures in just 4 minutes.

They'll claim to be 'liberal' next - oops, some of them are !

I can't disagree with any of the above really, Wes. You're absolutely right about the situation with regard to nurses and their agencies although a lot of work has been done to drive down the rates the agencies charge.

 

I think you're right about universities too. My children were fortunate in that their 'grants' were based on my salary alone (as I was divorced) and so they all got quite significant amounts which helped them.

 

I think employers recognise the 'good' universities but also I think they appreciate that the subject is often irrelevant - it's the self-discipline required to get the degree that is also important.

 

I also think, for example, that MBAs are becoming devalued now, with the increasing availability of colleges offering them.

I'm glad that we have some common ground on these things. But IMO we are talking about matters that make a great deal of common sense and which therefore should be embraced by all of the political parties.

The hospital matrons ran their wards efficiently and made it unecessary to employ "suits" to manage a lot of the administrative affairs. I've just boned up on the 2000 matrons that have been re-introduced due to public demand and apparently they have the responsibility to ensure that their wards are properly cleaned and have the authority to withhold payment if the work is deemed to be unsatisfactory. Their reintroduction surely means that bureaucracy can be cut elsewhere to compensate and like you, I do not see the need for Area Health Authorities, or indeed Area Educational Authorities for that matter. As with the Matrons, the Head Teachers are given more powers to run their schools, taking on extra executive responsibilities.

We agree that the degrees are devalued because so many can attain them. The same applies with the GCSEs and A levels. Ultimately, although it might make the government of the day look good that apparently educational standards have improved during their term, in reality, it is the employers who make the real judgement. What is the point of having a pass rate in GCSE of of 98.6%? Presumably the 1.4% who failed, did not write their own names correctly on the top of the paper.

I am concerned that too many pupils are encouraged by the ease of passing these exams into believing that they are really bright and then the disappointment when they learn that their achievements are not really that impressive is all the greater. When I was young (and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) the gold standard was 5 O levels and two A levels. With decent grades, that would have been sufficient to have gained a place at a fairly decent university. Now twice that number of GCSEs and A levels is required and the number of universities has mushroomed as the old Polytechnics are upgraded. The whole thing has been devalued.

It is quite an eye-opener to find an 11 plus paper from the 50s and see how even the 16 year olds would fare now.

With regard to your last sentence, Wes, I can tell you two stories.

My father visited us on one occasion. He used to teach Maths to bricklayer apprentices at the old Southampton Tech. He got very excited when my daughter said she had some 'O' level maths homework. His face fell when he saw the standard - it was way above what he taught. Similarly her own father, a Physics / Maths graduate from So'ton Uni, said that her 'A' level stuff was what he did when he was an undergraduate.

She now tries to help her niece with her 'A' level Maths and says it is as hard as when she studied for her Maths degree.

So I think standards have improved. But I think there needs to be a realignment of grades.

We agree that the degrees are devalued because so many can attain them. The same applies with the GCSEs and A levels. Ultimately, although it might make the government of the day look good that apparently educational standards have improved during their term, in reality, it is the employers who make the real judgement. What is the point of having a pass rate in GCSE of of 98.6%? Presumably the 1.4% who failed, did not write their own names correctly on the top of the paper.

 

I am concerned that too many pupils are encouraged by the ease of passing these exams into believing that they are really bright and then the disappointment when they learn that their achievements are not really that impressive is all the greater. When I was young (and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) the gold standard was 5 O levels and two A levels. With decent grades, that would have been sufficient to have gained a place at a fairly decent university. Now twice that number of GCSEs and A levels is required and the number of universities has mushroomed as the old Polytechnics are upgraded. The whole thing has been devalued.

The figure of 98.6% is pupils who achieved A*-G, the 'real' figure (the one that matters when it comes to colleges etc) of those who passed their GCSEs with A*-C is the one that really counts: I don't have the national data handy but at my school it is 60% (which is considered the 'magic' number).

Regardless of what people say these exams are not getting easier - If they were then I would expect to see the A*-C rate up around the 90% mark, when this happens, you may have a point.

Also Wes, you need 5 GCSEs at A*-C to get into college and three A-Levels (grades dependant on the institution) to get into Uni. The system really isn't that different to how it was back in your day. :-)

With respect to exams being harder /easier, you are comparing apples with pears. The curriculum is different now, and with this change of emphasis some things that were 'A' level are now 'O' level ( equivalent ), and vice versa. Things are 'easy' if you understand them, and 'hard' if you don't - ( much like watching Mastermind or University Challenge ).

Also, the exam regime itself is different; much more of the work that counts to the exam is modular, and can be reviewed and amended before being submitted for final assessment, as opposed to 'pure' exams which are taken on the day and are inviolate.

( On the whole I think this is a better way of doing things,- how many 'real world' workplace learning experiences are handled without reference to manuals or colleagues ? ). What is important is not so much the retention of knowledge as the posession of skills to analyse and assess, and to apply pratical experience to situations as they arise.

The figure of 98.6% is pupils who achieved A*-G, the 'real' figure (the one that matters when it comes to colleges etc) of those who passed their GCSEs with A*-C is the one that really counts: I don't have the national data handy but at my school it is 60% (which is considered the 'magic' number).

 

Regardless of what people say these exams are not getting easier - If they were then I would expect to see the A*-C rate up around the 90% mark, when this happens, you may have a point.

 

Also Wes, you need 5 GCSEs at A*-C to get into college and three A-Levels (grades dependant on the institution) to get into Uni. The system really isn't that different to how it was back in your day. :-)

The Government have a vested interest in giving the impression that educational standards are rising. Naturally teachers would like to believe that they are too. Ultimately though, the judgement that matters most is the employment market which makes its own assessment. Many employers do not consider that improvements have been made, so some have their own entrance exams. I hear much anecdotal evidence from clients of mine that many of their applicants show poor levels of numeracy and literacy, regardless of them having numerous passes at GCSE and A levels at supposedly good grades.

With respect to exams being harder /easier, you are comparing apples with pears. The curriculum is different now, and with this change of emphasis some things that were 'A' level are now 'O' level ( equivalent ), and vice versa. Things are 'easy' if you understand them, and 'hard' if you don't - ( much like watching Mastermind or University Challenge ).

 

Also, the exam regime itself is different; much more of the work that counts to the exam is modular, and can be reviewed and amended before being submitted for final assessment, as opposed to 'pure' exams which are taken on the day and are inviolate.

( On the whole I think this is a better way of doing things,- how many 'real world' workplace learning experiences are handled without reference to manuals or colleagues ? ). What is important is not so much the retention of knowledge as the posession of skills to analyse and assess, and to apply pratical experience to situations as they arise.

Ah! The modular part of the curriculum. The part that allows the parents to do the child's homework for them, eh? The written exam is the sure-fired way of assessing what has actually sunk into the grey matter during the terms' teaching. Failure to pass the exams could point to somebody's poor memory retention (not good for future employment) or that they did not do the projects unaided.

And surely the best way to apply practical experience to situations as they arise is through having a retentive memory and remembering what worked before.

The Government have a vested interest in giving the impression that educational standards are rising. Naturally teachers would like to believe that they are too. Ultimately though, the judgement that matters most is the employment market which makes its own assessment. Many employers do not consider that improvements have been made, so some have their own entrance exams. I hear much anecdotal evidence from clients of mine that many of their applicants show poor levels of numeracy and literacy, regardless of them having numerous passes at GCSE and A levels at supposedly good grades.

If you're going to ignore the facts and figures that I've produced for you then what is the point in debating?

If you're going to ignore the facts and figures that I've produced for you then what is the point in debating?

These are not facts. They might be figures, because that is what statistics are. The statistics show that pupils achieve more passes at certain levels of these exams called GCSEs and A levels. Whether it is a fact that educational standards have improved since I was sitting the O levels of the 60s is not proven by your statistics, so there is nothing factual to debate.

What I pointed out, which you have not chosen to respond to, is the simple irrefutable fact that employers will make up their own minds as to whether their job applicants are as clever as those from earlier times. As that is really the only true gauge that matters for a person's future career path, it is largely irrelevant whether the statistics show an improvement unless the employers believe it to be true.

If as you say, the real measure of success is the number of passes at grades A* to C, then a C grade is the equivalent to an O level grade 6. That was the lowest pass grade for O levels and there was none of this nonsense of saying that there was a 98.6% pass rate at O levels, as the percentage that managed to get 5 grade 6 O Levels or above was very much lower than it is for GCSEs, probably at just 30% or so.

Here is an excellent article which argues the toss over all of this ground, but which does acknlowlegde that standards have probably fallen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-healthy-upside-to-falling-standards-gcse-and-alevel-exams-probably-are-less-tough-to-pass-than-in-the-old-days-but-that-is-no-bad-thing-argues-judith-judd-1378723.html

That was written back in 1994, but I would suggest that the general thrust of it still applies, but even more so, as pass rates increase their climb each year.

And I still stand by my assertion that 11 year old pupils in this day and age would have less chance of passing the 11+ in greater numbers than they did in the 50s/60s.