OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

'Cocking a snoot'. Love it! Often wondered what a 'snoot' was but apparently 'cocking' one is that thumb on the nose and wiggle your fingers thing. Google hadn't been invented last time I heard it mentioned...no more secrets.

[swaledale]

'Cocking a snoot'. Love it! Often wondered what a 'snoot' was but apparently 'cocking' one is that thumb on the nose and wiggle your fingers thing. Google hadn't been invented last time I heard it mentioned...no more secrets.

Indeed the last time I used it (the phrase that is!) was before google!

[swaledale]

Swale, not being indicative but I fail to comprehend how folks don't get what's been done to them?
We joined an economic union, nothing more. We even had a referendum to ask if that's what we want.
Who,why,when,how decided it was to become a union of states under one political government?
Did you vote for this or did I?
I have nothing wrong with being European. I just fail to comprehend how some coke head in BRUSSELS DECIDES WHATS RIGHT FOR ME?
I endorse free trade and relations. I do not endorse unregulated free movement and laws imposed on me.
All I ask for is a clean slate and clarity.
If I said to you the EU is racist, would you agree?
It discriminates against the rest of the world, but allows any trash to travel within its borders unhindered.
We obviously are not going to agree on this. I have my mind set and you have yours. The extreme of this is Corbyns anarchists and the BNP.
What I object to, is being banded with the BNP for objecting for free movement.
This country is great. Why does it need some failed politicians in the EU(because that is what they are) to tell it how to conduct its business.
I'll take my chances thank you. The next interviewee I have in front of me in tears, that struggles to get a job because of cheap labour. I'll think of our tussles.

By contrast, the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20% for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70% for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain.

"They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."

Says it all really!

[Ram59]

Where do you get your information from? The wealthy London and south east were more in favour of remain, whilst the poorer working class areas voted more for leave.

I noticed that you could not come up with any good reasons for remaining. You like freedom of movement as do all of the undesirables of Europe.

Let's take a newly released *****phile in the eu. He wants a better life and wants to go to the USA, but he has no job offer, no accommodation and he is a criminal, so he can't go there. I know, he can jump into his clapped out car, drive to the UK because he can drive around without insurance or mot or road tax, he can ignore speed cameras because he's not reachable. Oh, he's also got some serious medical problem so he turns up at a&e where he's admitted into hospital for urgent surgery causing some poor Brit to have his operation cancelled. While he's in there, hell get his housing sorted out for him, probably right next to a school!

I think I know which system I prefer.

[swaledale]

Where do you get your information from? The wealthy London and south east were more in favour of remain, whilst the poorer working class areas voted more for leave.

I noticed that you could not come up with any good reasons for remaining. You like freedom of movement as do all of the undesirables of Europe.

Let's take a newly released *****phile in the eu. He wants a better life and wants to go to the USA, but he has no job offer, no accommodation and he is a criminal, so he can't go there. I know, he can jump into his clapped out car, drive to the UK because he can drive around without insurance or mot or road tax, he can ignore speed cameras because he's not reachable. Oh, he's also got some serious medical problem so he turns up at a&e where he's admitted into hospital for urgent surgery causing some poor Brit to have his operation cancelled. While he's in there, hell get his housing sorted out for him, probably right next to a school!

I think I know which system I prefer.

The system you have just described is not one that exists unless its portrayed in some rag like the mail or the express.

The research that has been carried out after the referendum!

So you would think that if you know that someone is working class and has a low income, you'd be able to confidently guess they voted Leave. But according to Stian Westlake, Head of Research at the think tank Nesta, this is not the case.

As I said in my previous post I didn't bother as its all been said before in this thread and frankly if you believe the **** you have just posted then i was right not to.

The vote was 53.4 to 46.6 of on 72% turn out, so to simply say the wealthy London and south voted for remain isn't the case anyway judging from what I've seen and heard the research is about bang on!

[AngryRam]

A lot of those perceived London wealthy don't live in London, a lot will live in the Home Counties and vote there. Yes of course some really affluent people but many, many poorer areas within greater
London.

[ramAnag]

Where do you get your information from? The wealthy London and south east were more in favour of remain, whilst the poorer working class areas voted more for leave.

I noticed that you could not come up with any good reasons for remaining. You like freedom of movement as do all of the undesirables of Europe.

Let's take a newly released *****phile in the eu. He wants a better life and wants to go to the USA, but he has no job offer, no accommodation and he is a criminal, so he can't go there. I know, he can jump into his clapped out car, drive to the UK because he can drive around without insurance or mot or road tax, he can ignore speed cameras because he's not reachable. Oh, he's also got some serious medical problem so he turns up at a&e where he's admitted into hospital for urgent surgery causing some poor Brit to have his operation cancelled. While he's in there, hell get his housing sorted out for him, probably right next to a school!

I think I know which system I prefer.

After that last totally unfounded, bigoted and prejudiced paragraph you have the audacity to ask Swale where he gets his information from? FFS...never read such total nonsense but then taking a single grain of truth and turning it into a total fabrication is recognised as a regular tactic of the extreme right.
There are plenty on here who can put forward a reasoned argument for leaving the EU...unfortunately you aren't one of them.

[AdiSalisbury]

Hadn't thought of tax exemption...brilliant idea...can you arrange a retrospective rebate please?

Seriously though, it does seem a little absurd that those who remain with the NHS and what is effectively the NES have to put themselves in significant debt these days in order to then 'serve' society for their working lives. Think I left college owing the NatWest about £100. Graduates these days leave owing tens of thousands. If you're then going to work for the state can that be right?
Maybe I haven't thought it through or maybe I'm just being contentious because the thread is stalling a bit in the 350's, but I would have thought some 'incentive' could be provided to prevent the drain to the private health and education sectors and this might be a way.

To throw an EU spin on this... if we subsidise our education / training / careers for NHS workers (eg reduction of student loans/ tax breaks etc), then maybe we'd need less expertise coming from abroad, as these careers would be more accessible to poorer UK families? You could always stipulate terms such as you have to do so many years service or you become liable for these discounts to reduce people getting training then jumping straight to private sector.

[roger_ramjet]

Ok so a non gifted child of wealthy parents goes to Uni and spends 3 years dossing around doing a non job focussed degree such as History of Art or Babylonian Studies. He gets a "Richard" then it dawns on him that he has £35000 of debt which he doesnt want to pay back. So he gets a job as a care assistant in the state system. Simples...no debt.

A great way to utilise scarce resources and meaning that the potentially brilliant engineering student from a poor background wanted by private industry may not go to Uni as he will be fully liable for his debt.

I get the idea of encouraging people into the publuc sector but giving out zero cost training isnt the answer. Its divisive, unfair and impractical.

Teachers, for example, have it all ways round. Salaries that have to be competetive as there is a private sector alternative; lovely index linked safe pensions. Ridiculously short working year (I know it might be a fallacy but I will be contentious). A very rewarding job with the ability to corrupt young minds! On top of all this these so called professionals, perhaps uniquely amongst the professional "classes", retain the ability to go on strike. Well in the public sector anyway - Ive not come across many strikes in fee paying school sector. And now you want to give them free training whilst engineers who are more likely to work in private sector remain burdened with debt? Are you telling me its more useful to society to have (eg) religious education teachers than future Isembard Kingdom Brunels?

I dont have anything personally against teachers but use this as an example. They want the best of both worlds, as do many. I speak here as ex school governor who has seen this first hand - not as intimately as you, Mangara, but enough to see that teachers arent all in it for altruistic reasons.

[AdiSalisbury]

I can't disagree with that, except my Richard in the History of Babylon seems to be devalued and I've no idea why! There must be some trades that are worth state funding ie life saving services.

Interestingly, as you mention engineering, there is a big push on engineering apprentices over graduates, I can see this being spread to more industries as it was a few years ago. Though not sure I'd want an apprentice eye surgeon working on me

[ramAnag]

Take all your points on board Roger and totally accept that all teachers aren't in it for 'altruistic reasons', as with all trades and professions, some are useless scivers and on a philosophical level I'd question whether there is any such thing as altruism anyway.

Having said that, I think you must have missed the recent junior doctors' strike and I don't think I ever mentioned 'zero cost' training but, as Adi hints at, I believe there is sponsorship available from companies such as JCB where engineering under-graduates are concerned. Quite right too. Shouldn't we at least offer some incentive to the likes of teachers, doctors, nurses and engineers etc who have to fund at least three or four years of necessary higher education. Fact is, most engineers will go on to work in the private sector whereas most teachers and doctors will go on to work for the 'State'. Don't get me wrong, I loved my college daze but four years of training plus two years of 'A' levels equalled six years of only grant and/or holiday job income...couple that nowadays with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt before spending 30/40 years working for the state/society and I can see a case for some sort of change.

P.S. Cricket's going okay.

[roger_ramjet]

I can't see any justification for providing certain career paths free/at a discount yet expect others to pay in full on principle of doing public service. This infers that public servants are more useful than those in the private sector. Its discriminatory, plain and simple.

If an industry opts to sponsor a potential employee's university education as part of a graduate entry programme, that's fine. If a particular school or NHS Trust opted to do the same thing out of their own budget, that's fine too. But it is not right to use your and my money (ie the taxpayer's money) to afford preferable treatment to certain individuals as a form of affirmative action.

The argument surely is this: students should have free university education regardless of intended career paths, or they should not. In my day and your's we were lucky enough to study in the former circumstances. Nowadays the philosophy has changed and its a paying environment. I would love higher education to be free to all (well OK not History of Art, babylonian Studies or media Studies) but it does not seem that the nation can afford that luxury. So if we cannot afford it for all it is not right to create a privileged group, regardless of whether they are public sector employees of the future or anything else. Its just too much Big Brother - and I suspect would attract the worst type of teacher into the profession: the mercenary.

I did spot the junior doctor's strike too but some strikes are less disruptive than others. Transport crew and teacher strikes stop many others from going about their normal working patterns and so those who suffer most are not relevant to the dispute. If teachers strike this costs innocent parents money in finding all day child care, taking unpaid leave or throwing away holidays to look after their own children. (If train drivers etc strike that ****s up still more people). On the other hand if car workers (are there any left?) strike, there are no innocent casualties

[AdiSalisbury]

We currently pay to qualify service personnel (which I agree with), I would be happy to see it stretched to certain trades. Can we have a referendum, and claim that if I lose, that those who didn't vote definitely would have voted the same as me (see, still on topic)?

[roger_ramjet]

We currently pay to qualify service personnel (which I agree with), I would be happy to see it stretched to certain trades. Can we have a referendum, and claim that if I lose, that those who didn't vote definitely would have voted the same as me (see, still on topic)?

Maybe we should simply privatise everything, including NHS, education, police and prison services, fire service and so on. Then we could pay as we need them and not need to give discounted training to selective parts of the economy.

As for training the services, I guess that's a necessary practicality as the equipment isn't exactly high street and the transferable skill is part of the remuneration package. But so is dying. Take the smooth with the rough: its all a gamble

[AdiSalisbury]

I meant they get commercial qualifications eg project management, engineering etc to use once they've left the services.