Does May want to win?

[Deleted member 59730]

Is defence worth spending money on?

I live near a Navy base. The level of wastage is enormous. The whole culture of defence in this country is a disgrace. Its just big boys and girls toys.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Infrastructure funding - like HS2?

Yes, although that's just one example. Improved transport links and less time spent on transport will help - particularly in the regional economies further north.

Investment funding - like paying for so many people to go to uni?

No. That's not investment funding.

The long-term economic benefits of a highly educated workforce are well documented, but I suspect that the number of students enrolling in university probably wouldn't change a great deal. With the existing system, students pay very little as it is (relative to the debt) with the debt being written off eventually anyway.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The long-term economic benefits of a highly educated workforce are well documented, but I suspect that the number of students enrolling in university probably wouldn't change a great deal. With the existing system, students pay very little as it is (relative to the debt) with the debt being written off eventually anyway.

It depends entirely on the type of students you attract. I think it was Harold MacMillan who introduced free further education in the 1950s. In the sixties and seventies there was a Golden Era of British achievement most notably driven by working class kids getting a chance they never had before. The result was the biggest increases in GDP since the war when those students were in their prime.

While the broad statistics show that working class children are not put off by student loans and fees we do not yet know whether they will have the same effect on the economy.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, although that's just one example. Improved transport links and less time spent on transport will help - particularly in the regional economies further north.



No. That's not investment funding.

The long-term economic benefits of a highly educated workforce are well documented, but I suspect that the number of students enrolling in university probably wouldn't change a great deal. With the existing system, students pay very little as it is (relative to the debt) with the debt being written off eventually anyway.

Cutting half hour off journey? Great if no extra charge or only small extra charge. Have been Birmingham to London many times, is the trip worth the expense of building a 2nd rail line?

Investment in people not an investment? Do degree graduates pay more total taxes in their lifetime?

 

[STDFR33]

I think HS2 is a complete waste of money.

The money would be better spent improving existing rail networks.

 

[Mr D]

I think HS2 is a complete waste of money.

The money would be better spent improving existing rail networks.

Can agree with that.

 

[Newchodge]

I think the Higher education problem was the decision to turn all polytechnics into universities and to make all their qualifications, degrees. When I went to university, as a mature student, my undergraduate degree was free and I received a maintenance grant that was enough to live on and buy the necessary materials for my course.

I have no problem with opening up higher education to as many people as can benefit from it, but I think there was an ideology that everyone should receive higher education if they wanted it, and therefore a move to creating courses which fit the potential students, instead of creating courses which fit the needs of potential employers.

That huge expansion in student numbers was expensive, so fees and loans came in. At the same time, students were achieving degrees which did nothing to improve either their chance of getting a decent job or developing people who could work in our economy and help grow the country.

We need to revert to educational establishments, at all levels, that provide an education that is fit for their students and fit for the country.

 

[Mr D]

I live near a Navy base. The level of wastage is enormous. The whole culture of defence in this country is a disgrace. Its just big boys and girls toys.

So is defence worth spending money on?
Is it better simply to reduce waste?

I was a civil servant for years, could tells stories of waste both in my own office and offices of friends.

Perhaps its simply a sign of government budgets, money must be spent even if wasted.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Cutting half hour off journey? Great if no extra charge or only small extra charge. Have been Birmingham to London many times, is the trip worth the expense of building a 2nd rail line?

You need to think of it in a broader economic sense.

One hour less on a train is one extra hour available to work. Extrapolate that across millions of people over the decades, and it results in hundreds of millions of extra hours of productivity in the UK economy from the same sized workforce.

It's not just about the convenience of individuals. It's about making the labour workforce as a whole more efficient with its time.

Investment in people not an investment? Do degree graduates pay more total taxes in their lifetime?

It is an investment. Just not an investment I was talking about.

With the current system, there's no financial barrier to university. The only barrier is lower level education, where students must have the GCSEs and A-levels to be accepted (along with the base knowledge).

It would therefore be a lot wiser to invest that into schools. Better education from an early age will spur a lot more young people to attend university than abolishing tuition fees.

 

[Mr D]

I think the Higher education problem was the decision to turn all polytechnics into universities and to make all their qualifications, degrees. When I went to university, as a mature student, my undergraduate degree was free and I received a maintenance grant that was enough to live on and buy the necessary materials for my course.

I have no problem with opening up higher education to as many people as can benefit from it, but I think there was an ideology that everyone should receive higher education if they wanted it, and therefore a move to creating courses which fit the potential students, instead of creating courses which fit the needs of potential employers.

That huge expansion in student numbers was expensive, so fees and loans came in. At the same time, students were achieving degrees which did nothing to improve either their chance of getting a decent job or developing people who could work in our economy and help grow the country.

We need to revert to educational establishments, at all levels, that provide an education that is fit for their students and fit for the country.

I went to uni as a mature student too, 2009 to 2012. My degree was free and I received a payment every few months into bank account that was around the same per month as my wages.
Think I must have spent around 200 pounds over the 3 years for books, most of which I recovered by selling many of them afterwards to other students.


Yes there has been quite a push to get courses done that meet what employers want. Have seen courses in golf management, leisure, policing, retail management - courses set up to meet particular employment needs.

Which courses teach the skills that graduates need? From what I have seen so far, most of them. Summarising, presentation, planning, working to deadlines, collaborating, splitting a project between a team - useful skills in some jobs.

 

[Mr D]

Scott - are there many people who will work an extra hour by travelling an hour less? Or will they simply use the time for things other than work?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Scott - are there many people who will work an extra hour by travelling an hour less? Or will they simply use the time for things other than work?

Loads of people.

This isn't just about going back and forwards between static employment. It's about fostering a more efficient business environment.

If someone works 9am to 5pm, but has to catch a train to a meeting during the day, the shorter the travel time, the greater the work time.

Plus, the easier places are to travel to, the more likely business relationships are to form between those areas.

Doesn't seem like much, but extrapolate it across millions of trips, and it makes a big difference.

 

[Newchodge]

When I used to travel regularly by train for work, I worked on the train.

 

[Mr D]

Needing to travel by train for a meeting that day but cutting an hour off the journey time?
Quite why a new business should cater specifically to someone who would choose to travel 200 plus miles during the day for a meeting...
Right, that's a few seats a day maybe. What about the rest of the train?

It costs a lot - if it isn't recovering the money spent is it improving productivity?
Like Cyndy I have worked on the train when travelling somewhere - travel doesn't have to be unproductive.

 

[The Byre]

Yes there has been quite a push to get courses done that meet what employers want. Have seen courses in golf management, leisure, policing, retail management - courses set up to meet particular employment needs.

Most of these courses - no, make that nearly all of these courses - are a complete and utter waste of time and effort!

Education in the UK is now a complete and utter mess. It was never cakes and ale, but now there is absolutely nothing in the UK educational system worth keeping. Half the teachers are that are able to stick it out have been forced into becoming useless, the schools are teaching dumbed-down rubbish that nobody really needs and shying away from hard subjects.

And as for tertiary education, it is crap on a stick, writ large!

Can someone explain to me carefully and in terms I can understand, why it costs c.a. £14,000 p.a. (£9k student and c.a. £5k from the state) to educate some poor unfortunate in Golf Course Management, Music Technology, Photography, or some other non-subject that more or less guarantees unemployment?

I just do not get it! WTF costs £14,000? I did an external to the LSE and the entire three year course cost £400 and about £200 for exam fees. (And I was assured that they made a profit on their external students!) OK, that was a while ago, but even if we allow for inflation and multiply that figure by some wild and wacky multiple, I cannot come to the idiotic fees universities are charging today. To go from £600 to £42,000 in 35-40 years makes house prices seem reasonable!

I think the Higher education problem was the decision to turn all polytechnics into universities and to make all their qualifications, degrees.

And we are bamboozling these poor kids into thinking that they have to have that degree if they want a job - and at the same time we are pretending that there are jobs available as sound engineers, photographers, TV cameraman - when there are none (unless the candidate attended one of the top schools, such as Surrey Uni Tonmeister, Royal College of Art, or the NFTS)!

At the same time, there are hundreds of professional certification courses that can be done in their spare time or for a fraction of the cost. For example, a recent survey (published in AV Magazine) of the UK's audio-visual display industry had InfoComm-CTS, CTS-D and CTS-I (https://www.infocomm.org/cps/rde/xchg/infocomm/hs.xsl/certification.htm) being asked for by two-thirds of all AV companies.

Nobody wanted Media Studies graduates!

And these courses and exams that industries themselves provide cost pennies, compared to the bogus and doubtful pleasure of attending a third-rate university.

And the candidate runs a real risk of actually getting a job in that career field!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

When I used to travel regularly by train for work, I worked on the train.

It's not the same, otherwise there would be no point in offices. Everyone would just work from home.

There's also a lot of work people can't just do on a laptop by themselves, believe it or not.

 

[Newchodge]

It's not the same, otherwise there would be no point in offices. Everyone would just work from home.

There's also a lot of work people can't just do on a laptop by themselves, believe it or not.

That's true. But there is also a huge amount of work that CAN be done on a laptop by themselves. All you need to do is to plan your workload.

 

[simon field]

And if you don't believe that austerity is not the answer, try it at home. Save a few hundred a month by giving up the family car and see if your overall wealth and well-being goes up or down!

Hang on though.... I did just that. I stopped using the car & bought a bike instead.

In 3 years I have lost 4 stone, saved over £10k in diesel - probably a couple of grand in running costs too.

So I am healthier, wealthier, fitter, happier etc etc.

 

[Newchodge]

Hang on though.... I did just that. I stopped using the car & bought a bike instead.

In 3 years I have lost 4 stone, saved over £10k in diesel - probably a couple of grand in running costs too.

So I am healthier, wealthier, fitter, happier etc etc.

Wonderful, congratulations. However, if you have 3 children under the age of 15 you would struggle without a car if the kids were used to having one. Plus public transport fares are appallingly high, without even considering the cost of grocery home delivery or getting a taxi back from the supermarket.

 

[Mr D]

The Byre - so courses set up to meet employer needs are a complete waste of time and effort?
What reason would you set up a course for then?

Presumably you have noticed that golf courses are big business and maybe someone who has studied the subject could bring about beneficial changes to the business?

Have you ever thought that when you did a course the government was giving most of the money to the education establishment? Now the student loans company give most.

As for having to get a degree - then yes.
If most or all employers in a field demand the applicants must have a degree then the only way to advance in that field is to have a degree.
Get the employers to change requirements before you want the potential students to stop going for a degree.

 

[Mr D]

It's not the same, otherwise there would be no point in offices. Everyone would just work from home.

There's also a lot of work people can't just do on a laptop by themselves, believe it or not.

There has been a rise in recent years of people working from home.
My previous job I ended up doing 4 days a week, 2 at home and 2 in the office.
Better for them, better for me for a time.

 

[Mr D]

Wonderful, congratulations. However, if you have 3 children under the age of 15 you would struggle without a car if the kids were used to having one. Plus public transport fares are appallingly high, without even considering the cost of grocery home delivery or getting a taxi back from the supermarket.

Grocery home delivery is what? 25 pounds a month or so?
Ok double that let's say 50 pounds a month for someone ordering two deliveries a week most weeks.
I do run a car, the cost per month is around 200 pounds all in. On the shopping side the savings would be significant.
It's only because I run the car for business as well that I keep the car. Otherwise would be home delivery, taxi and hire car as needed. A significant saving each month is possible for non business use.

 

[simon field]

Wonderful, congratulations. However, if you have 3 children under the age of 15 you would struggle without a car if the kids were used to having one. Plus public transport fares are appallingly high, without even considering the cost of grocery home delivery or getting a taxi back from the supermarket.

Yes, so much for a caring SHARING society eh!

The amount of Sports Direct Moms in Sport utility vehicles going silly at school in & out time in a somewhat disturbing 'enraged & stressy' fashion dropping off a solitary sprog and then driving off in a solitary fashion to go home - 1.5 miles away!

Couple that with stand-offish commuters who just want to be ALONE and there's really no real need for so many cars - unfortunately many people don't consider sharing.

 

[Mr D]

A number of employers in recent years have allocated car park space based on people car sharing as a higher allocation than those simply driving in themselves.

 

[Newchodge]

Yes, so much for a caring SHARING society eh!

The amount of Sports Direct Moms in Sport utility vehicles going silly at school in & out time in a somewhat disturbing 'enraged & stressy' fashion dropping off a solitary sprog and then driving off in a solitary fashion to go home - 1.5 miles away!

Couple that with stand-offish commuters who just want to be ALONE and there's really no real need for so many cars - unfortunately many people don't consider sharing.

I wasn't thinking of the school run so much as the after school activities. The cost of public transport is horrific and needs reducing to a reasonable level. I don't understand why anyone would commute by public transport when it is cheaper, pleasanter and more convenient to drive. Depending on where you live, obviously.

 

[Mr D]

I wasn't thinking of the school run so much as the after school activities. The cost of public transport is horrific and needs reducing to a reasonable level. I don't understand why anyone would commute by public transport when it is cheaper, pleasanter and more convenient to drive. Depending on where you live, obviously.

Sure, just reduce the cost of buses, reduce the wages of drivers, reduce fuel and servicing costs and let the bus companies charge for the journey rather than a maximum fare and easily done. Oh and reduce business rates too of course.

How much profit do the bus companies make per person carried? That's how much you could alter the ticket price by. And increase it every year with rising costs.

Sure you want both people to be paid more and the cost of services which have staff to be cut?
The two ideals appear somewhat contradictory.

Stagecoach - one of the big bus operators.
699 million journeys a year (from their website). Profit £104.4 million in year ending April 2016 from their june report.
They have 20,000 staff so your wage increases would hit them.

Right, 699 million journeys and £104.4 million profit that's almost 15p per journey you could save by reducing prices so no profit is made..
That's if you do not increase costs... so no pay rise for the drivers to pay them what you want them to have.

Would a 14p reduction per journey cause you to switch from car to bus when you already own a car?
Is a 14p reduction meeting your requirement to make fares a reasonable level?

 

[Clinton]

Am going back to an earlier post as I started replying to it this afternoon and then got distracted.

The Byre - we've had cut in corporation tax rate in Britain in recent years. Has the corporation tax paid gone up or down?

These proper economists you want to run that part of government - any of them stood for election?

There are a lot of economists who agree with @The Byre, but there are also tons of highly respected economists who think those suggestions are bonkers. So while @The Byre strongly believes he has the solution ... he is simply passing off one school of thought, one theory, as a solve-everything magic pill.

Life ain't that simple.

Sure, all kinds of ideas may work. Even a Corbyn style borrow and spend may work to generate an increase in tax revenues to cover those borrowings. (Or helicopter money drops or the government hiring people to dig holes and then fill them back up again.) These may work. Or they may not work and we end up in even more debt. There's a high risk of the latter hence the current government trying to get Britain to live within its means (or "austerity" according to the shrill shrieks from the left ).

What's the cost of servicing the national debt again? £50b a year? That's a huge drag on the economy right there! And some would risk taking debt servicing costs beyond what we spend on the NHS!

 

[Mr D]

There's a bloke called Richard Murphy, known as the guy who provided Jeremy with Corbynomics. Part time professor at some London uni (poor students).
He's a fascinating blogger, can say one thing one day then oppose that thing the following day. And his understanding of accounting (he was an accountant) and economics is .... different.
I'm a fan of his thinking (don't agree with him at all), I just hope the real world never catches on to him. Very much a statist.

​

 

[Clinton]

If we were to adopt @Clinton's idea of an aggressive 'beggar-thy-neighbour' low-tax economy, we would then be deluding ourselves into the belief that wealth is a magic, zero-sum gain - yet another fallacy!

It's not "my idea". It's one possible course of action if we leave the EU without a satisfactory deal.

Unfortunately, the so called tax haven option with, potentially, the abolition of Corporation Tax will benefit bankers and the rich more than anybody else. So I do not recommend it as our first option. But it's a possibility that the EU needs to be aware of through the negotiations. They need to be aware that if they try to make "an example" of Britain to dissuade other exits, they risk Britain "going rogue". France and Germany are already unhappy with our CT which, at 20%, is the lowest in the G7. In France and Germany the rate is over 30%.

Drop CT to 0% and that makes it more economical to base your business in the UK even if you have to bear WTO tariffs to play in the single market. It would make sense to move your HQ out of France / Germany and choose the post-Brexit UK instead. That's something the EU will go to great lengths to avoid.

0% CT will attract a lot more businesses to be based in the UK. Sure, they won't be paying CT, but they'll be paying other taxes and employing people. Dropping CT to 20% caused Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to shoot past £1 trillion in 2014-15 (government's estimates) and create employment for 85,000 people. Our FDI is the highest in Europe, by a long shot, because of our 20% CT rate. But FDI (and FDI related employment) would really take off if we went to 0%.

Something doesn't become a fallacy simply because you say so. Please provide some credible arguments or links to back up your claims.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

to educate some poor unfortunate in Golf Course Management, Music Technology, Photography, or some other non-subject that more or less guarantees unemployment?

Dear Byre

I take partial offence that Photography is a non-subject. As Further Education is not really about the election I've started another thread.

"Does Further Education improve the economy or is it a waste of money?"

 

[Clodbuster]

It's not "my idea". It's one possible course of action if we leave the EU without a satisfactory deal.

Unfortunately, the so called tax haven option with, potentially, the abolition of Corporation Tax will benefit bankers and the rich more than anybody else. So I do not recommend it as our first option. But it's a possibility that the EU needs to be aware of through the negotiations. They need to be aware that if they try to make "an example" of Britain to dissuade other exits, they risk Britain "going rogue". France and Germany are already unhappy with our CT which, at 20%, is the lowest in the G7. In France and Germany the rate is over 30%.

What about Luxembourg (5.79%), Liechtenstein 12.5%, Cyprus 12% and a host of other in the EU less than ours. Why should we not compete and keep profits from Google, Amazon, Pepsi Co, IKEA and some 260 other global companies who open a "Head Office".

 

[Mr D]

I hear Ireland do quite well from having Google there.
We do quite well from having Google UK here but not on the corporate profits side, being a cost centre rather than sales centre.

 

[Clinton]

What about Luxembourg (5.79%), Liechtenstein 12.5%, Cyprus 12% and a host of other in the EU less than ours. Why should we not compete and keep profits from Google, Amazon, Pepsi Co, IKEA and some 260 other global companies who open a "Head Office".

Just to be pendantic, Liechtenstein is not in the EU.

But I don't completely get your point. Given the section of my post that you quoted, are you saying that EU countries wouldn't be too concerned about us drastically cutting CT (on the grounds that other countries already have low rates)?

 

[Clodbuster]

You said that Britain would be going rogue when there are countries in the EU who are already doing exactly that. Why should we not attack them if they intend to penalise us for leaving. I live by the mantra of looking after myself and mine because no one else will, sod anyone else. Who cares if Germany et al do not like it.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You said that Britain would be going rogue when there are countries in the EU who are already doing exactly that. Why should we not attack them if they intend to penalise us for leaving. I live by the mantra of looking after myself and mine because no one else will, sod anyone else. Who cares if Germany et al do not like it.

Because we have to share the planet.

The world is like an isolated neighbourhood of 196 houses (countries). If you annoy all your neighbours, there's nowhere else to turn.

Our economy relies quite heavily on almost $700 billion of annual export trade. We are dependent on other nations, and we can't change that. Even North Korea is not isolated economically from the influence of other countries.

If everyone took up the mantra of "sod everyone else", we'd probably be extinct by now.

 

[KM-Tiger]

neighbourhood of 196 houses (countries)

Or 196 businesses.

We can strike good deals with others, or groups, where both profit from the deal, but at heart we remain competitors.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Or 196 businesses.

We can strike good deals with others, or groups, where both profit from the deal, but at heart we remain competitors.

Quite right.

But with traditional business, there's almost unlimited opportunities. For every business, there's thousands of others where they probably don't even know that each other exist.

If you burn bridges, it's not that difficult to build new bridges elsewhere.

With national economies, on the other hand, there's only 196 of them. And furthermore, the seven largest economies (including the EU as one) account for 75% of global GDP.

Take away the United States, China, the EU, Japan, South Korea and Australia, and it would result in a whole heap of trouble. Yes, there are big economies like India, but their per-capita wealth is nowhere near our own. Export trade can happen, but there are many restricting factors.

Diplomacy is critical. I don't know about you, but I'm far more likely to do business with people I like and trust than people I don't like or don't trust.

The "I don't care about anyone else" perspective is not only the primary source of war throughout history, but it also fuels paranoia and incentivises countries to restrict trade so they are less reliant on others.

Just look at the USA and China. They depend on each other heavily for their economies, but they wish they didn't. If they were less intertwined, the risk of conflict would increase exponentially.

That's one of the main reasons why globalisation exists. It keeps the peace. Share trade, and share people, and countries can't harm each other without harming themselves (physically or economically).

Take that away, and it becomes a tit-for-tat race to the bottom where both countries lose.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather respect our neighbours, compromise with them and at least try to coexist peacefully instead of being the angry old man across the road who barricades his house up and bursts the kids' football when it comes over his garden fence.