2024 Election thread

1…5681011…197

Comments

  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,205
    The Tories reliance on Pensioners creates an unholy alliance though.

    It means they can't abolish triple lock, which means pension costs balloon, which means they can't lower taxes, which means the whole "Singapore on Thames" small staters that drove Brexit can't get the main thing that drove the vision. The only tool they have is deregulation, which is usually either impractical when you still need to sell to markets bound by those regulations or creates negative headlines like water quality has.

    To keep spending under any sort of control they're raising the age you can claim pensions; plus the reduction in funding to the NHS and care means life expectancy is actually decreasing, shrinking their pool of voters both ends.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,162
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,542
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    pblakeney said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.

    Why?

    Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
    I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.

    It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.

    Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?

    Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
    Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.

    Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?

    Time will tell.

    Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
    Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.

    I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.

    Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
    I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.

    I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.
    I'm not so sure, a colleague's child at an "outstanding" state school had to teach themselves half their chemistry a level, as the teacher was re assigned half way through the year. That just seems incredibly unlikely at a private school.

    The teacher's I've met at private schools seem to almost be doing an entirely different job compared to a state school.
    Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.
    Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.

    Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.
    You can't make VAT payable by the seller. I'm embarrassed that they even thought such bollox would wash.
    Exactly this. Anyone liable for VAT payments charges VAT.
    Surely a not for profit organisation reinvests everything and has no profits?
    VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.
    Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.
    It was 2 separate lines of two separate sentences making two separate points.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    rjsterry said:

    pblakeney said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.

    Why?

    Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
    I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.

    It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.

    Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?

    Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
    Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.

    Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?

    Time will tell.

    Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
    Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.

    I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.

    Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
    I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.

    I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.
    I'm not so sure, a colleague's child at an "outstanding" state school had to teach themselves half their chemistry a level, as the teacher was re assigned half way through the year. That just seems incredibly unlikely at a private school.

    The teacher's I've met at private schools seem to almost be doing an entirely different job compared to a state school.
    Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.
    Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.

    Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.
    You can't make VAT payable by the seller. I'm embarrassed that they even thought such bollox would wash.
    Exactly this. Anyone liable for VAT payments charges VAT.
    Surely a not for profit organisation reinvests everything and has no profits?
    VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.
    Yes, but the circumstances would have changed in line with the cancelled proposals.
    Not worth getting bothered about really.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    First.Aspect said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
    Meh the whole "getting older and mortgages" trope isn't really what the data says. It's more seems getting very old and retired means you vote for the blue team.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
    Meh the whole "getting older and mortgages" trope isn't really what the data says. It's more seems getting very old and retired means you vote for the blue team.
    Sorry, what's the difference?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
    Meh the whole "getting older and mortgages" trope isn't really what the data says. It's more seems getting very old and retired means you vote for the blue team.
    Sorry, what's the difference?
    Over 65s generally aren't paying mortgages.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,541
    Polling since last general election


  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
    Meh the whole "getting older and mortgages" trope isn't really what the data says. It's more seems getting very old and retired means you vote for the blue team.
    Sorry, what's the difference?
    Over 65s generally aren't paying mortgages.
    The trend is the same as it ever was, the Tory crossover age is getting higher, that's all. Commensurate with the age beyond which your long term prospects haven't been screwed by this bunch of bald testicled posh boys.

  • captain_chaos
    captain_chaos Posts: 111
    pblakeney said:

    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?
  • captain_chaos
    captain_chaos Posts: 111
    pblakeney said:
    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    edited September 2023
    captain_chaos said:

    pblakeney said:

    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?
    Possibly less enlightened, but high tech and blue chip in some cases.
    Although having worked freelance for a good few years I am probably out of date. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,620
    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    pblakeney said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.

    Why?

    Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
    I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.

    It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.

    Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?

    Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
    Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.

    Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?

    Time will tell.

    Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
    Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.

    I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.

    Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
    I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.

    I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.
    I'm not so sure, a colleague's child at an "outstanding" state school had to teach themselves half their chemistry a level, as the teacher was re assigned half way through the year. That just seems incredibly unlikely at a private school.

    The teacher's I've met at private schools seem to almost be doing an entirely different job compared to a state school.
    Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.
    Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.

    Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.
    You can't make VAT payable by the seller. I'm embarrassed that they even thought such bollox would wash.
    Exactly this. Anyone liable for VAT payments charges VAT.
    Surely a not for profit organisation reinvests everything and has no profits?
    VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.
    Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.
    It was 2 separate lines of two separate sentences making two separate points.
    Thanks for clarifying your original post :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    Oof.




    I'd say Sunaks first goal is to get back above 30. Get a foot hold in the game.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • joeyhalloran
    joeyhalloran Posts: 1,080
    captain_chaos said:

    pblakeney said:
    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?


    Isn't that the problem though? A candidate from a private school with as much help and private tutoring of exam results that £50k/year gets you Vs having to deal with classmates causing disruption, hiding being smart for fear of bullies and a miniscule amount of attention from an overworked teacher both get the result GCSEs, which has more aptitude?
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    Rick's hacked your account!

    If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.
    Need something to vote for, first.
    Catch 22 though. Who is going to put forward policies they would vote for when they don't vote in significant enough numbers to affect the result and why would they vote when no Party offers them something of interest? In the end they play safe and pander to the demographic they know come out in higher numbers.

    Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn was the Messiah for a lot of the students I know - I think at that age you are less aware how messy politics can be and how fudge & compromise often are the most sensible option... plus they were aware of Thatcher's reputation for no compromise from a right wing angle, and thought that Corbyn was their antidote to that, without being aware of why Thatcher got the support she did, in reaction to the 1970s.
    There's not much resolution in those national data, but the trend in SNP voting with age reflects that as well.

    This is firstly why they wanted anyone over the age of 6 to be able to vote in the referendum, and secondly why they mistakenly thought that by now a lot of the No voters would have died and they'd be paying for stuff in Scottish poonds by now.

    In fact, what happened as well is a lot of young Yes voters have got older, got mortgages and started to pay tax.
    Meh the whole "getting older and mortgages" trope isn't really what the data says. It's more seems getting very old and retired means you vote for the blue team.
    Sorry, what's the difference?
    Over 65s generally aren't paying mortgages.
    The trend is the same as it ever was, the Tory crossover age is getting higher, that's all. Commensurate with the age beyond which your long term prospects haven't been screwed by this bunch of bald testicled posh boys.

    Retirement is quite a different point in life to mortgage and settling down no?

    The idea seems to be "oh you get old and wise and vote Tory". Whereas it's actually you get old and dependant on benefits and vote Tory.
  • joeyhalloran
    joeyhalloran Posts: 1,080
    I think it used to be you got old, gained wealth and voted Tory but that doesn't happen anymore
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    pblakeney said:

    captain_chaos said:

    pblakeney said:

    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?
    Possibly less enlightened, but high tech and blue chip in some cases.
    Although having worked freelance for a good few years I am probably out of date. 😉
    The large (and small) engineering companies I've worked at and continue to work at have all been interested in what uni people have been to...

    One company I work with (although this is in America) even pay graduates from certain unis more than others.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,542
    tailwindhome said:

    Oof.




    I'd say Sunaks first goal is to get back above 30. Get a foot hold in the game.


    I think that's just righting the oddity of the previous YouGov poll which had Labour & Tories five percentage points closer, and was taken as proving that Sunak was right to be focusing on ULEZ and rolling back environmental protections.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    joeyhalloran said:

    captain_chaos said:

    pblakeney said:
    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?


    Isn't that the problem though? A candidate from a private school with as much help and private tutoring of exam results that £50k/year gets you Vs having to deal with classmates causing disruption, hiding being smart for fear of bullies and a miniscule amount of attention from an overworked teacher both get the result GCSEs, which has more aptitude?
    £50k a year is a long way north of what most pay. Average is from £5k to £8k per term. More if boarding. I'm sure Brian will confirm that behaviour isn't solely an issue for state schools. I don't really recognise the latter two points from my own state schooling thirty-odd years ago let alone from my daughters' school.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Jezyboy said:

    pblakeney said:

    captain_chaos said:

    pblakeney said:

    Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
    The qualifications alone should suffice.

    At the (Large engineering) business I work at, the school/university that applicants attended has zero relevance in the (pre) application review or assessment process for experienced hires. We solely look for skills/experience. In more than 25 years that I have been supporting recruiting this has been the case.

    For grads and apprentices it is degree/A Levels/GCSEs - again we have no interest in which School or Uni was attended

    I guess the poster quoted must work in a less enlightened organisation?
    Possibly less enlightened, but high tech and blue chip in some cases.
    Although having worked freelance for a good few years I am probably out of date. 😉
    The large (and small) engineering companies I've worked at and continue to work at have all been interested in what uni people have been to...

    One company I work with (although this is in America) even pay graduates from certain unis more than others.
    I have some sympathy for thinning out the candidates earlier in their career by academic achievements. If not university name per se, by the degree subject and how well established that subject is at that university. Some jobs require what are basically academic skills , and no amount of enthusiasm can make up for it.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,542
    Dan Neidle revises his view on removing charitable status... tl;dr it's a piffling amount.

    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • joeyhalloran
    joeyhalloran Posts: 1,080
    Seems like the level of tax is doing the rounds this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

    What I don't understand is if "Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels" and it's at a historic high, why is everything so shit? NHS and (state) schools are underfunded, infrastructure projects scrapped, road quality gone to shit. Is it all going on pensioners? I understand inflation had to inflate tax take to keep up but £100bn seems like a lot.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,604
    joeyhalloran said:

    Seems like the level of tax is doing the rounds this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

    What I don't understand is if "Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels" and it's at a historic high, why is everything so censored ? NHS and (state) schools are underfunded, infrastructure projects scrapped, road quality gone to censored . Is it all going on pensioners? I understand inflation had to inflate tax take to keep up but £100bn seems like a lot.

    Couple of years of wage inflation with no change to tax bands?
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    pangolin said:

    joeyhalloran said:

    Seems like the level of tax is doing the rounds this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

    What I don't understand is if "Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels" and it's at a historic high, why is everything so censored ? NHS and (state) schools are underfunded, infrastructure projects scrapped, road quality gone to censored . Is it all going on pensioners? I understand inflation had to inflate tax take to keep up but £100bn seems like a lot.

    Couple of years of wage inflation with no change to tax bands?
    My uneducated understanding is the UK has high borrowing and a lot of interest rate linked loans that puts it in a worse position regarding repayments than most similar economies with a similar debt level. The BoE seems to bear a lot of responsibility for this for their excessing qe, which included buying a lot of the type of the lower interest rate debt that we would really want to have now.

    So there's less money and we need to pay for that, basically.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    joeyhalloran said:

    Seems like the level of tax is doing the rounds this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

    What I don't understand is if "Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels" and it's at a historic high, why is everything so censored ? NHS and (state) schools are underfunded, infrastructure projects scrapped, road quality gone to censored . Is it all going on pensioners? I understand inflation had to inflate tax take to keep up but £100bn seems like a lot.

    the second biggest expenditure is on servicing debt. It seems that borrowing as much as possible when rates were rock bottom was not a good idea

    Plus aging population means more goes on healthcare and pensions
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    surrey_commuter said:

    joeyhalloran said:

    Seems like the level of tax is doing the rounds this morning.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

    What I don't understand is if "Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels" and it's at a historic high, why is everything so censored ? NHS and (state) schools are underfunded, infrastructure projects scrapped, road quality gone to censored . Is it all going on pensioners? I understand inflation had to inflate tax take to keep up but £100bn seems like a lot.

    the second biggest expenditure is on servicing debt. It seems that borrowing as much as possible when rates were rock bottom was not a good idea

    Plus aging population means more goes on healthcare and pensions
    Sorry, more on debt than healthcare and pensions?!
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    kingstongraham said:

    Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:



    _

Categories