h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A balanced parliament would be a good thing imo - almost like a National Government to tackle this crisis.

It would protect us from the excesses of a Tory government unhindered by opposition and the further incompetencies of Labour.

It would also mean real and meaningful cuts could be made without one particular party being stigmatised.

Well, you'd like to think so.

In reality a hung parliament will mean endless bickering and another election inside 18 months.

"leading to the nimbyism and sabre rattling from unions."

They're trying to save jobs and livelihoods, something which private sector employees should be doing too.

The public/private divide is another attempt to pitch worker against worker. I'm dismayed that people fall for it.

Roymondo - what happens if saving THEIR jobs and THEIR livelihoods screws the country? Unions are just special interest groups concerned with the needs of their own members before anyone else.

>what happens if saving THEIR jobs and THEIR livelihoods screws the country? < Fred Kite

The country has been royally clucked and screwed every which way you can possibly think of by the banks. Or haven't you been listening to the news in the last 18 months?

The rest of us are now going to have to be royally screwed and clucked every which way you can possibly imagine, because the public purse had to bail them out, or the country would have gone totally bankrupt.

@Effers

In case you hadn't noticed, the Government bought some banks.

Which are now publicly owned.

And they're returning profits.

And they'll be sold off again when the markets recover.

At a tidy profit.

The country could do well out of this ultimately.

What we're struggling with is the legacy of profligate spending over the last ten years as the Government brought us bread and circuses.

Where did all the money go?

Given that all the schools, hospitals and even the planes and ships were bought under PFIs so we haven't paid for them yet, where did all the money go?

All this talk of cuts - but where did all the record taxes of the last ten years go?

It's also worth pointing out, if we go back to the NUT rally, what was said -

NUT: "If you’re coming for our jobs, our pensions, our services and our education,…we are going to defend them"

Note the order.

Just a thought. Do MP's get paid for going out and advertising their products ? It must be great to know that you can shut down for a month knowing full well that others will manage without you.

"In case you hadn't noticed, the Government bought some banks. Which are now publicly owned. And they're returning profits. And they'll be sold off again when the markets recover. At a tidy profit. The country could do well out of this ultimately. What we're struggling with is the legacy of profligate spending over the last ten years as the Government brought us bread and circuses."

Er... no. Perhaps in some weird parallel universe, but not in this one. If it were simply a matter of buying some banks, holding them as assets, and selling them on at a profit, we wouldn't be in a crisis, would we? Public borrowing would have to go up massively, but all that money would be made back, and the only issue would be the cost of borrowing the money. It would be a lot like a mortgage.

However... if it were possibly to buy up the banks and sell them for a profit inside a few years, why didn't private finance do it? Why was the drastic step of nationalisation needed? It was because the banks were bankrupt and there was no realistic possibility of them making that money back - that's why no-one bought them. And that's why the taxpayer had to step in because there was no private sector alternative. And that's why we have the current crisis. As I said earlier in this thread, the taxpayer will see some money back, but it's not going to be anything like what was paid out.

I'm still amazed that anyone can seriously look at the genesis of the current crisis.... and blame the unions and the public sector.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"
J.Goebbles

It is funny that the allmighty conservative media here coincides in many aspects with yours.

@Otto - I stand corrected on the banks. I'd been led to believe we would ultimately sell them at a profit and they've actually started to repay the moneys loaned to them.

However I do not blame the public sector and the unions for the origins of the financial crisis.

>>The Top Ten choices for University Degrees in 2006 were -

1. Law
2. Design Studies
3. Psychology
4. Management Studies
5. Business Studies
6. Computer Science
7. English
8. Medicine
9. Sports Science
10. Social Work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6071026.stm

Yay for us! We absotively need more lawyers and psychologists. Pity we don't have any chemists or engineers or physicists in there but hey ho bring on the social workers. <<

Since this is kinda my field, I wanted to reply to this before I read the backlog, apologies if I'm covering something someone has already said.

1.) Number 8 - medicine. 2nd/3rd hardest degree to get onto and doctors are kind of important, wouldn't you agree? Social workers are also pretty useful, doing an incredibly hard job for a low wage

2.) 50% of all jobs want the applicant to have a degree - any degree will do, they just want to see a person is capable of working at those higher levels. Since this is the case, degrees that can lead into a wide variety of fields, such as English, computer science, business, psychology and law will always be more popular than degrees that lead into a very narrow field (medicine excepted of course).

3.) Art and Design is one of the most popular GCSE and A Level choices, which is why its rank is so high. It's a very vocational subject and given the absolute dearth of proper vocational education (which is expense and always suffers when education cuts hit), it suits a lot of kids who would otherwise struggle.

4.) How does people's degree choices relate to this argument? What does it matter if I did my degree in Politics and Philosophy instead of pharmacy?

I pretty much made your no. 4 argument earlier HI

And anyway, with the exception of Management Studies and Sports Science, those all look like pretty good degrees. (Plus, the list is pretty similar to the 1996 one they give on that website.)

< 50% of all jobs want the applicant to have a degree - any degree will do, they just want to see a person is capable of working at those higher levels. >

But when degrees are ten a penny and everyone has one it counts for little more than a school leaving certificate. The quality of the degree is of some significance in job selection. A first class honours usually helps and the reputation and quality of the University counts for a lot relative to the career you are looking for.

>>But when degrees are ten a penny and everyone has one it counts for little more than a school leaving certificate<<

When that day comes, we can start worrying about it. However such a state of affairs is a long way off.

>>A first class honours usually helps and the reputation and quality of the University counts for a lot relative to the career you are looking for.<<

That isn't the case any more, if it ever was. There's a definite advantage to having a 2.1, but as often as not a 1st shows that you focused on your degree more than anything else. A person with a 1st class degree and no extra-curricular activities would struggle to get a job outside of academia.

Think about it for a second: you've got two candidates, me and my mate. Similar in temperament, both of us know how to do well in interviews. I got a 2.1 in Phil/Pol, best mate got a 1st. Best mate didn't join a single society or work while at Uni, I joined Scuba diving, LGBT, stood in student elections, acted as a student rep, worked three different jobs, volunteered in local schools: who do you pick?*

What does my mate have to talk about in interviews? Epistemology, proportional representation, the metaphysics of morality? I can talk about a *lot* more. What you do with your time at uni is far more important than just what class of degree you got, or where you got it from.

Iago BA(Hons), PGCE Esq.

* Just for reference - in the 4 years since we left university, said friend has been unemployed or temping for 3 years. I've been unemployed for less than 12 weeks total. He gets the interviews, but never the jobs because he can't talk about his transferable skills.

In a much more competitive field, I get more interviews and job offers. His 1st emphatically does not trump my 2.1 plus experience.

Without doubt BSBB has always been a qualification to be aware of.

n the real world I'm student at Manchester Uni, doing a highly intellectual subject with a very light workload *giggles at the thought the Government are paying me over 5 grand a year to sit on my backside 5 days a week* >

Yeah, I did a degree with a light workload. I'll repeat: I was doing 3 jobs alongside my degree.

When I started Uni, I thought I wanted to be a teacher. I knew all I needed was a degree, any degree, so I did something fun. Most of my time was spent getting work experience in schools and in public speaking. I worked nights at a cinema to earn beer and Scuba diving money.

Fact remains, my work experience is a huge advantage over those with 1sts and no experience. That's true all over.

I should probably change my intro - it's a bit out of date

You were 25 at the time you admit to swanning around. It's hardly a career path that you should be advocating. Cuts should be made where people are happy with second best and an attitude of I'm alright Jack.

The date bit is accurate - I'm 25 now, I was 19 when I originally wrote that intro.

>>Cuts should be made where people are happy with second best and an attitude of I'm alright Jack.<<

3 jobs. I didn't settle for 2nd best, I accurately judged what my priorities should be. If I'd have wanted it, I was more than capable of getting a First, but I wanted better things.

I'm a careers advisor and I've worked in universities and schools since I was 18. I know this subject far better than most and certainly better than you: why not just concede that you're wrong, move on and stop attacking me personally instead of my arguments?

Incidentally, neither you nor the sock puppet have answered my point no.4 (and Effers before that) - what difference does it make what degree a person has?

What's BSBB?

Most accountancy firms decided to accept people with ANY degree about 10 years ago - precisely because any sort of firm benefits from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, rather than narrow specialism too early in their people.

For any degree with an element of technical content (IT f'rinstance) the pace of change is currently so super-fast that by the time they've reached the end of their 4 years study, half of what they've learned is out of date. Ability to adapt and learn new things is more relevant than absorbing a load of facts. The times they are a-changin' as a wise man once said.