Johnny Bognor

Look BTF, in large corporates with graduate intake programmes, they can be more flexible as to who they take in and then train them suitably in their careers. However, in SME's (which make up for the largest part of our economy) you need people to hit the ground running. If I hire someone straight from Uni, then they need to have studied a relevant subject. In Finance, I don't have the time/resource to train a Media Studies graduate in the basics of finance. If I hire someone in HR, an English graduate is no good. If I hire someone in IT, a music graduate doesn't help much. If I hire someone in production, a degree in aromatherapy does diddly squat for me. I have people with 1st Class English Degrees from Cambridge doing data entry for me - far more qualified than I'll ever be, but that is all they are good for in my business. Speak to any owner / manager of an SME and they'll tell you the same. The only other alternative is not to hire graduates and take them in after they have a few years experience and training (at someone else's expense). I am not saying it is right, it is just the way it is.

Yes I do and maybe I was being a bit flippant, but my point still stands regarding those degrees that are worth investing in where we can get a tangible return So what if it is? My point being is that there are some degrees which benefit us economically and others which may enrich the life of the individual, but why should I have to pay for it I agree that it is a shame and in an ideal world there would be free education for all. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is no money and that magic socialist money tree didn't exist. Unfortunately we had a history graduate who ran our economy in to the ground. You could argue that the current man is also suitably unqualified to run an economy, however I guess we can hope that being a history graduate, he might learn from the mistakes of the past. @ all of you arguing the toss, I was trying to find a compromise, where some courses could/should be protected and/or subsidised. If you don't agree, then ******** to you, lets just stick up ALL tuition fees (as is being proposed) for everyone!

To be fair, I would include sciences. The UK's pharmacuetical and biotech industries are healthy and worth investing in. Technology is another important area for us to progress as a nation. In fact, it was the positioning of Stanford University in terms of being a centre of technical excellence that spawned Silicon Valley that led to the creation of the most successful technology companies in the world (Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Intel etc) which generates immense wealth for the US as a nation. Had Stanford University in Silicon Valley gone for art, history and philosophy, where would they be now? This supports my view that universities need to meet the needs of the nation and the economy, rather than some leftie vision as to the right to be educated in whatever one chooses. You could almost call me a commie for such centralised planning. I think people should choose to be educated in what they like, but the state should only pick up the tab for degrees that provide ROI.

To be fair, I just googled useless degrees and picked the first one (that happened to be a bit crap). These were just used to make a point, which you can do without hours and hours of research. I think peeps as a whole, got the gist of what I was saying, so your point is?

Good for him, but he would never have made a surgeon with that degree, as per my example, where in some lines of work, the subject matter is essential. Good for you and I am sure there will be other examples of people doing well in careers with a degree that isn't necessarily relevant. However, it is now about choices as the money is thin on the ground. As opposed to increasing fees on ALL courses, my argument is that if savings have to be found, then it would be better to fund the courses where there is more likely to be a return, whilst increasing the fees on others. It kills two birds with one stone - saving some money, whilst ensuring that the future of the economy is protected. Increasing all fees is a bad idea, whilst funding all courses is unaffordable. Surely common sense would dictate that there is a compromise to be had and what I am arguing is exactly that? I still stand by my statement that there is a mismatch in what industry/the economy needs and what people choose to study. By encouraging people into areas where there is a demand, this has to be a good thing.

In some ways yes and in others I disagree. If I want to operate on people, a degree in philiosophy isn't going to cut it (excuse the pun). There are some careers where the subject matter is of the utmost importance, in fact essential. As an employer, I look at the subject studied as it gives an indication as to whether the student is serious about what they are going to do. If I am hiring an IT Techie, an IT degree (or any degree involing logic) would be more preferable to Golf Management. If I am hiring a finance person, accountancy would be more useful than Media Studies. Therefore the subject you study is relevant to many employers. Graduate unemployment is at its highest level and quite frankly, many of the graduates I see are unemployable. There is a mis-match between what is required by the economy and what students are prepared to study. I am happy to pay more or contribute more if there is a return. I refuse to subsidise some **** head student who wants to do some mickey mouse course that is only good for their own ego.

I am personally against blanket rises across all degrees and would like to see a compromise. If a degree is useful to the economy (i.e the taxpayer is likely to get a return on their investment) such as IT, Engineering, Accountancy, Law etc, then the state should/could subsidise it or I would also like to see more subsidy/investment from the business community for degrees that are specialist in their respective sectors. For example, it the legal profession need more lawyers, then put some money in to help out. If a degree is useful to society (i.e. we need doctors and nurses) then again it should be subsidised as we are likely to all be beneficiaries one day. If your degree is in Art History, Golf Management, Star Trek, Queer Musicology, Philosophy, Surfing, The Phallus, Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology, David Beckham studies (yes, these are all real degree courses......see http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php), Media studies (which may as well be on that list) or Outer Mongolian Jazz in the 16th Century (OK, I made the last one up), then pay for it your ****ing self! That way 'we' as a nation get the education we need. That is all.

Talking of b-anter, what happened to b-anter.co.uk?

If you read the socialist worker, maybe. But the British Medical Association suggested the idea some 4 years before William: Prior to the Second World War there was already consensus that health insurance should be extended to the dependants of the wage-earner, and that the voluntary and local authority hospitals should be integrated. A British Medical Association pamphlet, "A General Medical Service for the Nation" was issued along these lines in 1938. However, no action was taken due to the international crisis. During the war, a new centralised state-run 'Emergency Medical Service' (EMS) employed doctors and nurses to care for those injured by enemy action and arrange for their treatment in whichever hospital was available. The existence of the EMS made voluntary hospitals dependent on the Government and there was a recognition that many would be in financial trouble once peace arrived. The need to do something to guarantee the voluntary hospitals meant that hospital care drove the impetus for reform. In February 1941 the Deputy Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Health recorded privately areas of agreement on post-war health policy which included "a complete health service to be available to every member of the community" and on 9 October 1941, the Minister of Health Ernest Brown announced that the Government proposed to ensure that there was a comprehensive hospital service available to everyone in need of it, and that local authorities would be responsible for providing it. The Medical Planning Commission set up by the professional bodies went one stage further in May 1942 recommending (in an interim report) a National Health Service with General Practitioners working through health centres and hospitals run by regional administrations. [Oh, look who pops up after every man and his dog recommended it] The Beveridge Report of December 1942 included this same idea. He came too late and when he did, he just copied someone else. If you read the history of taxation, not only were the better off taxed on income, most of the duties imposed on the poor were removed (and the poor didn't pay income tax). Another interesting fact not found in the Socialist Worker.

Whilst Attlee and Bevin went ahead with developing Britain's nuclear weapons programs!!!!

Hey, R&Rman2, I hate to **** on your bonfire, but the tories invented the re-distribution of wealth (taxing the better off whilst lowering the burden of the less well off) decades before the Labour party was formed....... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis2.htm As for the NHS, this was a central policy in Winston Churchill's 1945 election manifesto. Had he won, the NHS would have been a tory invention. (See the section on Health http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml)

To be fair, I did hear about it the other day.

I was thinking that yesterday when someone on the main board (in response to our little bournemouth friend) mentioned that we should treat him like a pet Hamster and pat him on the head. Then I thought, where is our little pet hamster?

You've not come onto this thread to make a Cochlea of yourself again, have you?

Indeed. If you had a poll of turkeys voting against Christmas and then went with the headline "100% are against Christmas", it is skewed somewhat. There are many without kids who are in favour of the cut strangely enough. I will be affected and agree with the principle. I do think, however, that the execution could have been better. I guess it was in retrospect, so will hapily take back my comment.

Sky reported it, but the source was Yougov. Are you suggesting that a Yougov poll is not scientific and not independent? Whereas the founder of netmums is? Andrew Haldenby (who said dismantling universal benefits is unstoppable), Fraser Nelson (who said a lot could be saved by cutting middle class benefits) and Neil O'Brien (who said the welfare system was framed for a different age) did not make a single comment as to the rights and wrongs of cutting of child benefits. You could argue that what they said was totally irrelevant and that they were only included in order to give a perception of balance (that the odd blinkered leftie would fall for), but the crux of the article was how everyone is against the cut and the only basis for this is some tree hugging netmum. That's about as balanced as a wheel that needs wheel balancing

I looked for balance but coudn't find any. Their unscientific poll from some online tree hugger showed that 7 out of 10 were against. A scientific poll by Yougov, found over 80% were in favour: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/YouGov-Poll-Suggest-Public-Backs-Child-Benefit-Reforms-Figures-Are-Boost-For-Conservatives/Article/201010115752925?f=rss

But Labour can no longer complain about GO's lack of experience, when they appoint AJ. Missed opportunity for the lefties methinks.

Well whatever they are, Ed Milliband clearly shows his card as to how to oppose / debate any cuts. He appoints a shadow chancellor who admits he knows **** all about economics and will need to read a book over the weekend to bring himself up to speed. Although I detest Ed Balls, he knows his stuff and would be more effective in making the economic arguments. At times like these, it has never been more important to have an effective opposition, so Ed appoints a muppet (a nice muppet, but a muppet all the same).

I remember it as: Wooooooooooooaaaa, You're sh1t, Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhh, Ooh Arrghhh

Maybe you're on to something. Could the child benefit cut just be a smokescreen to deflect people's attention away from other cuts / austerity measures?

I agree that the most vulnerable in society should be protected. That is why I could not understand why Gordon removed the 10% tax rate, hitting those that could least afford it and those who depended on it the most. Maybe the worm has turned, Labour hitting the worst off and the torries hitting the better off. Who'd have thought it eh? I agree with the cut in child benefit for the better off (and I know you do too, you're just gutted that this was brought in by the tories). I know scores of peope that don't need it, so why give it to them? So in essence it is a good idea, however the execution could have been better. Perhaps they should have introduced it at the 50% tax band level where the main earner gets £100k+. This would be easy to measure and implement and avoid the scenarios that you have put forward. It might not save as much, but it would still be better than nothing.

Surely if he is as red as they come, he would share his spoils with his public sector friends?

I would be quite happy to see Bush sharing a cell with Gordon, not problem with that at all. I would probably chuck in Bliar to keep them company. As much as I hate to see the rewarding of failure, the benefits system needs a complete overhaul - £26k for doing **** all is rewarding idleness. Germany's manufacturing base is only 3% more as a percentage of GDP than ours. It is bigger, not not as much as some people are led to believe. Many famous German brands are often not made in Germany anymore such as BMW, VW, Mercedes and Bosch. The number of bankers earning big bonuses is relatively smal in the scheme of things. As for the super rich not paying their fair share of taxes, I have suggested before (with Fuengirola's agreement) that the super rich should be offered a choice - invest your money in the UK economy and UK businesses (upon which you may get a return and increase your wealth) or we'll tax it. To me this will kick start the UK economy, create jobs and even create more wealth. Too much money is locked away and if this can be put to good use, this coud be good for us all. We're all in this together.

I am glad you said this, because political allegiences aside, I blame both those in the financial system that were responsible and the politicians that allowed it to go on. In my mind they were equally culpable. People should remember that not all bankers were to blame. The thousands of 'normal' bank workers / tellers who lost their jobs are real victims here - they didn't do anything wrong, but lost their jobs through mismanagement. Not all banks were bailed out with Barclays and HSBC turning healthy profits. Lloyds was only brought to its knees because of Gordon's idea to acquire the car crash that was HBOS. Likewise, not all politicians were to blame. Cable constantly warned parliament (as did Oliver bleeding Letwin), but they were shouted down by Brown who knew best. I only get on a political bandwagon when the left on here will not accept any criticism of their precious Gordon. I have made my opinions clear on him, he should stand trial for criminal negligence. I also believe that there are some in the high echelons of the finance industry that should be brought before the courts - there are some that knew what was going on and they should be hunted down and prosecuted. I have no problem with rewarding success, but even a capitalist like me cannot fathom why Goodwin gets a £7m pension, when he oversaw the car crash that became RBS. It is immorral to reward such a catastrophic failure.