Turn on thread page Beta

Point out all the good things Cameron has done.. watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    he,s not done a thing to help anyone,the country is still a mess.

    They all promise to do this/that if they get in power and when they do nothnig good happens everything just goes up £££££.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    They probably did but Conservative voters tend to be Southern English middle-class with a particular distrust of "students", mainly because a lot of the middle-class managed to "make it" without going to university and don't understand how the world has changed and the job market has become global. Having spoken to a lot of people in the workplace, I think there's a sense that our place in the world is secure and that we'll always have a certain standard of living no matter what levels of skills we have (it's more a matter of placing people into jobs, you don't need to actually "form" them), whereas developing countries like India, South Korea, even other European countries will stay poorer despite putting their youth through better education, simply because that's the order things have always been....

    I'm seeing more and more qualified IT and engineering jobs going to highly-qualified foreigners who are willing to be paid a fraction of a British graduate and they do the job just as well or better, because it's so hard to find a British graduate who will do a decent job or you have to pay for the best. This trend will extend to other industries progressively and there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for British graduates or non-graduates who simply won't be able to compete. This wouldn't be so bad if there was a strong presence of British graduates in the other markets: there are plenty of young Germans for example working in top companies in the UK, you'll struggle to find that many Britons working for top German companies

    The other thing is that the lack of funding in higher education (note that while this government is decreasing funding in higher education, other countries are increasing funding because they know that's an investment for long-term growth) will not have an impact until at least 5-10 years, probably much longer.
    I was under the impression they've only cut money to the humanities degrees?? In which case my personal guess would be that in terms of work productivity the gain from an english degree or equivalent wouldn't counter the 3 years out of the labour force; would you disagree?? It's also instilled an arms race style situation where everyone has to get a degree and far too many people are going to university hence the largest increase in foreign labour isn't in skilled graduate jobs as you're making out but in less skilled jobs and plumbing, electrician"ing" etc!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sempron)
    he,s not done a thing to help anyone,the country is still a mess.

    They all promise to do this/that if they get in power and when they do nothnig good happens everything just goes up £££££.
    "nothing good happens"?!?! Grow up, stop being such a stereotypical whiner, I'm not the biggest fan of labour and I can see the negatives of most politicians ever but whether because of or in spite of the policies of the governments of our lifetime and before we are richer, living longer, healthier etc than any generation before us. Yes we've been hit by a recession but this last decade has still seen more widespread worldwide growth than any time before! 100s of millions have left poverty and britain is richer than ever before (over the last few years, maybe we peaked in 2007 but we'll surpass that within the decade almost certainly!). Confidence matters more than most of the policies the tories are implementing and so with your stupid negativity you're worse than Cameron (I actually like Cameron but whatevs!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goose1990)
    "nothing good happens"?!?! Grow up, stop being such a stereotypical whiner,
    :rolleyes:

    Okay...mr know it all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goose1990)
    I was under the impression they've only cut money to the humanities degrees?? In which case my personal guess would be that in terms of work productivity the gain from an english degree or equivalent wouldn't counter the 3 years out of the labour force; would you disagree?? It's also instilled an arms race style situation where everyone has to get a degree and far too many people are going to university hence the largest increase in foreign labour isn't in skilled graduate jobs as you're making out but in less skilled jobs and plumbing, electrician"ing" etc!
    If I am honest, I don't know the breakdown of the cuts in higher education. I'm just concerned by any form of cuts in public spending in higher education when already the UK does not invest much in higher education, relying for as long as it can on the reputation of old universities to attract the big wallets of international students. That will only work for a certain length of time.

    What I hate about the media is how they make such information like this so oversimplified. It's very hard for the average person to know if the cuts they're talking about are general government spending on higher education or if they're talking about the teaching budget which has been the prime focus. Most articles mix the two up.

    Science teaching is ring-fenced but as someone who studied science & engineering, the level of teaching is not the only factor in higher education investment. Capital spending is being decreased by 2/3. If one type of department is going to be hurt by capital spending it's going to be the science departments. In any case, we're talking about a higher education budget going from 7bn to 4bn.

    From an old BBC news article referring to the previous government
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8491729.stm
    SPENDING ON UNIVERSITIES
    Finland 1.6%
    Sweden 1.4%
    France 1.1%
    United States 1%
    Germany 0.9%
    UK 0.9%
    Poland 0.9%
    Spain 0.9%
    Italy 0.7%
    Japan 0.5%
    Source: OECD, public spending on higher education as percentage of GDP. Most recent figures 2006.

    So we're potentially looking to be towards the bottom of that list. I also think that the 1% for the US is incorrect and probably only includes federal funding. Until recently, the US had at least understood that a successful higher education system relied on public and private spending. Anyone who thinks that we're moving to a US-style system of funding is sorely misled and even then, I'm not sure that following the US, is the way to go anyway.


    I do disagree with the statement about the English degree, although I do regret that there is not much more focus on science & engineering degrees. The ruling class see studies and the job market in terms of their era. A lot of people in their 40s and 50s are from an era where you didn't need to study to land yourself a cushy job and work through the ranks. Noone needed to compete at a global level.
    Our economy is only going to be based on high-tech manufacturing (if we manage to keep it before it dies) and knowledge-based industries. The days of everyone doing a short apprenticeship to work in a factory are long gone and only concern a tiny fraction of the workforce. We need people who are open-minded, cultured, know several languages, have amazing technical skills and analytical abilities. In my opinion even an English degree will form the person to think differently to someone who goes straight into the workforce.

    I think a mistake may have been to reclassify a lot of technical colleges as universities but whether people do a 4-year course or a 2-year vocational course, training young people is essential for the economy to survive.

    Yes the majority of the population will see the competition in the services industry but at the other end of the spectrum, a lot of qualified jobs are going to foreign nationals in Medicine, Information Technology, Engineering, most of them not being graduates of British universities. This has already started and will only continue and takes different forms: foreign nationals coming here to take up jobs or simply that function moving to those countries.

    "The squeezed middle-class" will make even more sense as the British workforce which is not qualified enough and doesn't have the skills risks being pushed to jobs in the middle of the spectrum of skills.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goose1990)
    (I actually like Cameron but whatevs!)
    Completely out of interest, can you explain to me what you like about him? I know loads of people who like him but I don't see why.

    I find him particularly slippery and disingenuous in political debate. I also like my politicians to have strong ideas when I don't feel he represents anything. He just has this "Call me Dave" approach almost to say "tell me what I should do and say to you so that I can stay in power".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Even in the case of Labour, the measures that they took will only be seen in a decade or two especially when it comes to education. They totally turned around failing schools (rather than just closing them) and the impact of such measures can only be seen when those children reach working age.
    Labour ruined education. We have toppled down the international league tables, while doubling the education budget. What a disgrace.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=SamTheMan;30433947]- The Labour government launched a massive stimulus package in the economy, simply following basic Keynesian economics. This simply resulted in a decent "bounce-back" following the recession which has already been hit by coalition measures.
    QUOTE]

    Our recession lasted longer than every other coutnry in the G20. I wouldn't call that a decent boubnceback personally.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=usainlightning;30443507]
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    - The Labour government launched a massive stimulus package in the economy, simply following basic Keynesian economics. This simply resulted in a decent "bounce-back" following the recession which has already been hit by coalition measures.
    QUOTE]

    Our recession lasted longer than every other coutnry in the G20. I wouldn't call that a decent boubnceback personally.
    Why not? How is the strength of the bounce back weakened or strengthened by the length of a recession?

    Do you actually know why the UK was so badly hit by the recession? (or let me guess, you're not sure so you're falling back on the typical clichés of the scapegoat and oversimplification?)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    Labour didnt just overspend to during the recession they also overspend when times were good. If i recall they only had 2 years where they were in surplus...
    You're wrong again. 4 years.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...zoomed-picture

    Even then, the debt only started to creep up from 2002-2003 from a particularly low-level in the low 30s% to about 40% just before the crisis. The reason why the stimulus package was so huge in the UK is because we could allow ourselves to do so. UK debt was the lowest in the G7 and even with the massive stimulus is still lower than US, France, Italy, Japan...

    Anyone stating how much interest we're paying on the debt is just misleading the electorate and being disingenuous. Governments pay interest on their debt, that's a fact you deal with when you manage a government budget.


    (Original post by NGC773)
    I should have made my statement more clear, i wasnt just talking about cutting budgets taking along time but all supply side policies which the tories favour take time to came into effect. Its easy for labour to spend and quickly see results where as efficiency savings..etc wont see results for awhile.
    You mean reducing public spending and waiting/hoping for private spending to replace it? Yes you can wait forever in some cases...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Atleast david camerons practical, the people like the greens and labour just say they wouldnt do this but then they dont say what they would do which means there unpractical. Labours answer to youth unemployment is to invest billions in it so basically what their saying is we will invest billions and then nothings going to change and well be in bigger debt.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=SamTheMan;30443526]
    (Original post by usainlightning)

    Why not? How is the strength of the bounce back weakened or strengthened by the length of a recession?

    Do you actually know why the UK was so badly hit by the recession? (or let me guess, you're not sure so you're falling back on the typical clichés of the scapegoat and oversimplification?)
    I don't see how you can judge that it was a decent bounceback when we were the last G20 country out of recession. Of course we were overly reliant on financial serviceS, which can also be blamed on succesive governments but mostly the last one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Labour ruined education. We have toppled down the international league tables, while doubling the education budget. What a disgrace.
    I find your signature offensive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    You're wrong again. 4 years.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...zoomed-picture

    Even then, the debt only started to creep up from 2002-2003 from a particularly low-level in the low 30s% to about 40% just before the crisis. The reason why the stimulus package was so huge in the UK is because we could allow ourselves to do so. UK debt was the lowest in the G7 and even with the massive stimulus is still lower than US, France, Italy, Japan...

    Anyone stating how much interest we're paying on the debt is just misleading the electorate and being disingenuous. Governments pay interest on their debt, that's a fact you deal with when you manage a government budget.




    You mean reducing public spending and waiting/hoping for private spending to replace it? Yes you can wait forever in some cases...
    You can't deny that only having a surplus for 4 years is bad considering that since 1997 there were probably 8-9 years of substantial boom! Also they sold a lot of one-off national resources and instead of investing the money from all our resources they just spent such as the gold and the 3G bandwidth both of which made billions, with the 3G bandwidth GordB could have knocked off £1000 income tax for everyone for a year! Keynesian economics says spend in a recession to stimulate, we're out of recession! Also we're GOING TO HAVE A DEFICIT TILL 2015, so we are spending over our means to stimulate the economy?! If you borrow money during a recession you're helping to balance out the business cycle as you pay it off in the good times, if you borrow during good times then you're saddling future generations with your debt (not necessarily a bad idea as our kids will probably be much richer than us if the last couple of hundred years are to go by!).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I don't see how you can judge that it was a decent bounceback when we were the last G20 country out of recession. Of course we were overly reliant on financial serviceS, which can also be blamed on succesive governments but mostly the last one.
    Thatcher created the culture of over-reliance on a few square miles in London. Labour just continued this mantra.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    He's been in power for a year. Of course he hasn't done anything anyway.

    People voted for the Conservatives at the last elections because they thought that somehow the Conservatives would clean things up and that Labour had left things in a "mess" (as the coalition loves to describe things).

    The fact is, to think that the state of the government finances is mostly Labour's fault, is a complete lie that is reiterated throughout the media and political discussions. The debt would still be where it is, give or take a few percent, no matter who had been in power. The financial crisis hit the UK a country that relies heavily on the financial services industry, a characteristic of the UK that has existed ever since the Big Bang of 1986 when the markets were deregulated and US, Swiss, German banks invaded the City to set up shop or to increase their presence.

    Even in the case of Labour, the measures that they took will only be seen in a decade or two especially when it comes to education. They totally turned around failing schools (rather than just closing them) and the impact of such measures can only be seen when those children reach working age.
    what a joke labour has ruined our education system, according to the OECD (a non biased international NGO) our educational ranking has plummeted from 8th in 1997 to 26th now despite doubling the education budget

    its a showcase of labour's methods and legacy throwing money at situations and not really rectifying them
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sashari)
    But you can't just say hat conservative ways are also great. Yes, their ways will bring up long-term benefits, but what do we do now? With Labour- yes they were chucking money into the economy - but that is what you meant to do during a recession to get it working again. By putting money into the economy it will start creating jobs and job incentive - when the economy is doing better you are to tax people more because people are confident about their life styles - you can't do this when country is already suffering economically as much as it can!

    Let's see an example: in Japan after the crisis - they didn't start taxing people massively to repair the damage - they threw millions into Japanese companies to stabilise the situation.
    BUT if we followed labour's deficit plan we would be probably end up going bust as by 2015 we would have a deficit of c.5.5% of GDP and a debt of c.115% of GDP worse than Greece's situation last autumn and we all know what happened to Greece

    I do accept your point that the Coalition's policy will have (and is) a negative impact on growth but a weak pound and buoyant international economy should prevent a double dip (and therefore a fall in taxations) but of we were to follow labour's plan it would probably lead to huge sudden cuts over a few months in a few years time (larger than those proposed in any year of the coalition) as investors panic and the IMF is forced to intervene, now that would cause a double dip as confidence evaporates and eye watering cuts are imposed
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Biased in the sense that I state that Osborne is not fit for the job? If you say so. It's not necessarily that I can't imagine a Tory-led government but not with this generation of Conservatives.

    In any other country, someone like Osborne controlling the country's finances would set alarm bells ringing. Brown didn't have amazing credentials but he was an academic who understood basic Keynesian economics and probably understood how economies have gone through recessions in history.

    Have a look at France: they've had people like Dominique Strauss-Kahn (now president of the IMF) and currently Christine Lagarde (a former partner at McKinsey) as their Finance Ministers while we get lumbered with Brown and now, even worse, Osborne. Even seen completely objectively, anyone would point out that Osborne does not have the credentials that most Finance Ministers usually have.

    Osborne the guy who was calling for more liberalisation of the markets in general i.e. until the crisis (of course, how convenient) Conservative policy was aligned with Labour and they didn't want to differentiate themselves. Osborne was only saying "more liberalisation" (i.e. I want more of that good stuff these Labour guys are doing) taking example on...Ireland, a model that the UK should be following. Of course the Tory spin doctors have managed to sweep that one under the mat discreetly.
    being well qualified (professionally and academically) doesn't mean you'd make a good finance minister or minister in general- just to name a few thatcher and blair were both lawyers whilst tebbit and major never went to university
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    There probably was a sense that Labour's policies had lead to overspending and I would agree to the extent that Brown had broken his Golden rules but there was no particular over-spending in the sense that Labour have always believed in the State playing a larger economic role in the country, rather than the markets deciding everything for us (ironically, aren't people angry at a crisis due to this actual attitude: letting the markets decide?). Labour have always shown more admiration for the economies of countries like Scandinavian countries, rather than the US or Australia. The Conservatives however have always believed in a smaller state and there's no denying that they're using the opportunity of cleaning up the budget by not just balancing the books but also of implementing their ideology of a smaller state where the government does not have to fund the education of or provide any general public service for most people or at least, not entirely fund it.

    I'm of the view that the best way you can sort out your own economy, is to vote for someone who knows their stuff, who has the credentials and qualifications and let them get to business, rather than emotions letting you decide how you vote.
    Yes, as you say, most people don't see things that way. They're only interested when their wallet is impacted or they think it will be impacted and then they want a scapegoat as they are angry. Anyone who offers to "clean up the mess" is more than welcome.

    Coming out of a recession with a large deficit, you need to make cuts. That was never a subject of debate, even though some people might have thought that the Tory policy sounded more aggressive: people are angry, they want things to be cleaned up and the person who shouts the loudest that they will clean things up, will win votes.

    What we're seeing before our eyes is that the characteristic of a well-run government following a recession isn't whether it makes cuts or not, it's the manner in which it implements those cuts. I may be wrong but until now, I have seen very few economists or foreign politicians who have come out to congratulate the British government in its handling of the cuts. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner, has repeatedly said that the Tories were going the wrong way.

    Historically, the only effective cuts have been ones that have been brutal and indiscriminate: Canada with Paul Martin in the 90s, Sweden also in the 90s, even more recently certain small countries like Estonia. You have to accept that the cuts will have a horrible social impact but if everyone knows that the country as a whole is being affected, then it's easier to bite the bullet. The coalition government is not doing this at all.

    You also need to be clear if you want the richest in society to bear the brunt: you need to be clear about it, with actual stats explaining this or you need to explain that everyone will be impacted including the poorest in society. But instead of being clear, the cuts are described as being "fair" :rolleyes:

    Instead of actually being clear, since the coalition government has been in place, never have we heard the word "fair" so frequently. Fair this, fair that. In any other English-speaking country, voters wouldn't accept such a vague and unclear term. What does fair even mean? Fair because of equality? Fair because of social justice? Fair because it doesn't affect me too much? It's a completely nonsensical word.

    For anyone who thinks I'm talking absolute tosh (considering that most political debate on these matters tends to limit itself to "the previous government created a mess" "the current government is cleaning it up"), here's an article from a Lib Dem think-tank, having a look at the Swedish deficit of the early 90s. I'm not particularly fond of Lib Dem economic policy but if someone has ideas, then they should be heard.
    http://www.libdemvoice.org/jens-henr...cit-19964.html
    how an earth did you manage to come to the conclusion that the conservatives want to stop funding education, whilst higher education is being cut (although state backed and quite generous loans are available) primary and secondary education funding is not being reduced (or at least not much- there is a bit of controversy over how the pupil prenium will be funded)

    the IMF backs it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11419937
    the OECD backs it http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,37..._1_1_1,00.html
    60 senior economists http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8523034.stm
    20 odd senior businessmen back it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/l...more-jobs.html
    is that enough?

    the problem is that the rich can easily leave the country they are well paid because they are very productive and in high demand as a result furthermore they are hugely important for the exchequer for example the top 1% pay 25% of all income tax
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    You're wrong again. 4 years.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...zoomed-picture

    Even then, the debt only started to creep up from 2002-2003 from a particularly low-level in the low 30s% to about 40% just before the crisis. The reason why the stimulus package was so huge in the UK is because we could allow ourselves to do so. UK debt was the lowest in the G7 and even with the massive stimulus is still lower than US, France, Italy, Japan...

    Anyone stating how much interest we're paying on the debt is just misleading the electorate and being disingenuous. Governments pay interest on their debt, that's a fact you deal with when you manage a government budget.




    You mean reducing public spending and waiting/hoping for private spending to replace it? Yes you can wait forever in some cases...
    the problem isn't that we are paying interest it is the amount even assuming the coalition plan works we will end up spending more on the interest on our debt than the defence budget which is the world's 4th largest now thats a lot of money

    reducing public spending could increase private spending as in the end how do you fund a deficit?- by borrowing from the private sector, if the public sector stopped individuals/firms won't hide their cash under the pillow they'll either spend it (unlikely), invest (mainly firms) or save it (most likely). GDP= Consumer Expenditure + Investment + Government Spending +Exports - Imports. So the first 2 will clearly lead to no change in GDP as money is just spent by someone else. If money is saved then banks have it some will be kept to increase buffers against another credit crunch but not most as they have to pay interest and some banks have plenty of buffers the result will then be lent out driving the economy. this is called crowding out.

    also cutting the deficit impacts interest rates. if the government embarks on a credible deficit reduction plan (IMF, OECD, Moody, Standard and Poor and Fitch all say its credible) then investors will be less worried about sovreign debt and will require lower rates on government bonds. as a result lenders will probably lower rates to borrowers as they tend to shadow (amongst other things including the Bank of Englands base rate) sovreign debt rates hence borrowing will increase (connected to last point about banks having more money to lend as savings are higher) hence the economy will grow.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.