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

[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.

[Akwesasne]

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

Only if they learn't those skills in logistics whilst in service. There is'nt much demand in Civvy Street for ex-infantry men. Most have to compete with the lower skilled in the job's market and if traumatised or handicapped in anyway it's down to Care in the Community which doesn't exist. Hence the need for organisations like the British Legion.

[ramAnag]

But Roger...it would be the taxpayer paying, or making a contribution towards, a facility that the tax payer then benefits from. What's so wrong with that?
I too would love 'higher education to be free' but I doubt it's going to happen. Not in our lifetime at least. You've already suggested that you believe there to be some sort of 'pecking order' of importance/usefulness as far as University courses are concerned. Not sure we're talking here about a 'privileged' group, more 'essential state employees' (that does sound horribly Big Brother I know) who could 'lose' part of their training debt for every five years of NHS/NES employment...something like that.

As for the doctors' strike being 'less disruptive'...doesn't it all depend on circumstance? Not less disruptive if you're a childless person waiting for an operation on the day of the strike. Anyway, your argument ultimately just goes to show how important teachers are...not just there to educate but also to 'child mind' so the rest of society can go to work

[ramAnag]

QUOTE=AdiSalisbury;38206313]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)?[/QUOTE]

Not another referendum Adi please. See our economic growth forecast has already reduced to 1.6% for 2016 and 0.6% for 2017 on the back of Brexit. Thank you so much to NF (are those initials coincidental?) and Co. for that. Still

[roger_ramjet]

"But Roger...it would be the taxpayer paying, or making a contribution towards, a facility that the tax payer then benefits from. What's so wrong with that?"

Whats wrong with it is that the taxpayer currently gets the benefit without having to pay for it. If you are serious with your propoal, then I suggest that teachers should get free graduate and teacher training and be exempt from income tax and national insurance. They should also get a 60% pay cut. Seems to about equalise things in net pay terms.

After all what is the point in the exchequer paying the teachers and the teachers then paying tax to, erm, the exchequer

[roger_ramjet]

This would of course need to be coupled with pension reform giving them the same minimum pensions required to be paid by employers under new pension legislation.

Not forgetting the fact that they should be required to do unpaid community service during the long summer holidays as well as maybe during the other holidays, thus allowing them the same 4 or 5 weeks off per year that others are entitled to. Perhaps litter picking might suit as that is something they can do for society?

They should also be taxed on the free school meals they get!

See when you start comparing different remuneration packages it isnt always in your favour!!