O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Trickytreesreds]

Well done Swale...we’d wandered and that sentence has certainly got us back to ‘the Government’ and our ‘leaders’.

Why just this government?
It applies to most MP's. Take a look at your glorious EU. If ever there was a collection of people, who have never done a real job in their lives and living the high life. There it is.

Farage tells em and they don't like it lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ul...l=GuardianNews

[Andy_Faber]

look at people who get some top jobs to realise that a lot of them have never worked at a "real job" in their lives!

You’re right and if you mean all jobs not just in parliament the two evils of ‘jobs for the boys/girls’ and positive discrimination have are equally to blame for inefficiencies in private and public sector.

[ramAnag]

Did you know that in 1997, 126 of our leaders (MPs) were former teachers? 20% of the lower House! So I guess that explains the lack of leadership with real jobs in their past.

Since then that number is way down I imagine, but I wonder why there was such over representation at the time? Perhaps all part of rA type plan to infiltrate the legislature and waive student loans for teachers.

No I didn’t...but I do now.
I imagine you mean ‘post May’ 1997...coincidentally the beginning of one of the better periods of government.

Tbf...I didn’t specify waiving student loans for teachers did I? I said those who put the years in working directly for ‘the state’...so those who spend years qualifying and then work in the NHS, schools, social services, armed forces, police, civil service etc. It was a thought...not a ‘plan’.

For instance a degree qualified nurse who spent ten, twenty or even thirty (or more) years working for the NHS, rather than swapping to the possibly more lucrative private sector, might benefit accordingly. Same might apply to doctors...and yes...teachers too. Would that be such a bad thing? If so...why?

Btw...what constitutes a ‘real job’?

[Trickytreesreds]

A real job?
One that actually means you have to work at it to achieve a result.
One that if you don't achieve an acceptable performance, you get the sack and no pay.
One that means you have to work when you really don't feel well, or the job doesn't get done and others suffer.
One requires effort of either physical or mental strain, leaving you very tired.

Too many freeloader jobs out there. From the Royal family/ MP's/ Lords/ TV leeches. No pressure on them, lots of goodies and rewards for little effort. Usually backed up with a cushy pension or pay off.

For RA. I would not be against state organised education for service careers. All I would insist on, is a timed fixed employment contract and a buy out clause like the services, if you can't hack it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

No I didn’t...but I do now.
I imagine you mean ‘post May’ 1997...coincidentally the beginning of one of the better periods of government.

Tbf...I didn’t specify waiving student loans for teachers did I? I said those who put the years in working directly for ‘the state’...so those who spend years qualifying and then work in the NHS, schools, social services, armed forces, police, civil service etc. It was a thought...not a ‘plan’.

For instance a degree qualified nurse who spent ten, twenty or even thirty (or more) years working for the NHS, rather than swapping to the possibly more lucrative private sector, might benefit accordingly. Same might apply to doctors...and yes...teachers too. Would that be such a bad thing? If so...why?

Btw...what constitutes a ‘real job’?

Not sure, ask Swale - he "coined it" upthread

So what's wrong with subsidising the education of people who work in the state sector? I suppose I can answer that by asking "what's right with it". I suppose its a bit like the question "what's wrong with nationalised industries". At a conceptual level it has attractions but the reality is it doesn't work too well outside core service industries

I suppose the question is one of perspective - if one believes in the state sector as empowering, then there should be no need to "bribe" people to work in it by preferential treatment. Ordinarily a person will chose a job or career path in part by its remuneration stream, in part by his/her aspirations from the job etc. So on this basis if "free education" is part of an overall package then fine. But it will of course result in wage inflation as the private sector then needs to offer higher wages to attract employees from the public sector. And then when the private sector get higher wages, the public sector unions will demand equal wages and the spiral goes up and up....

But at its core, such an action would be discriminatory and divisive, favouring one employer over another. I'm sure it would be contrary to EU law, not that that matters for much longer.

There is precedent in the USA as regards the armed forces - where students are educated "free" (or at least subsidised) but in exchange for future obligations to serve in the military. This may seem a good idea, unless you are one of those countless student-athletes who then have had to deal with the lure of hugely paid professional sports contracts at a time they should be serving their country.

In an oblique way I think this also applies to the education of military recruits in the UK too - maybe they have to sell their soul to the devil of the military for 7 years in order to get, for example, engineering training? I'm guessing this is because its hard to get people to join the military and they have to be "bribed" to sign up.

[Geoff Parkstone]

And, in the immortal words of Columbo: just one more thing.

In principle a revised employment package for "teachers" (for the sake of simplicity I will use that word to encompass all the functions that you have included) allowing an annual reduction in outstanding student debt for completed years service for the state might work on a going forward basis - BUT there is no way it could be grandfathered in to past students

[mistaram]

Can't we change the title of this thread to The governments handling of anything . Because everything they do they feck up .

[MadAmster]

Can't we change the title of this thread to The governments handling of anything . Because everything they do they feck up .

They actually seem to be doing quite well at making fortunes for people who "donate" money to the Tory Party and/or are friends/relatives of the PM's advisor Goings...........

[ramAnag]

And, in the immortal words of Columbo: just one more thing.

In principle a revised employment package for "teachers" (for the sake of simplicity I will use that word to encompass all the functions that you have included) allowing an annual reduction in outstanding student debt for completed years service for the state might work on a going forward basis - BUT there is no way it could be grandfathered in to past students

Sometimes GP I fear your own employment has led you to suspect everyone of sheer self interest. Maybe explains your attitude to Johnson too.

Tbf...at no time have I suggested any such scheme could be ‘grandfathered down to past students’. Indeed I made it very clear that 43 years ago I qualified with negligible debt and excellent employment prospects.
Times however have changed...it is those qualifying today, or from the last decade or so, that I refer to, and all I have suggested is that those who, having spent time and money qualifying, then spend their working lives working for the good/betterment of society, might be rewarded in this way.

I’d also entirely agree with Tricky’s proviso from his final sentence.

[Ram59]

Sometimes GP I fear your own employment has led you to suspect everyone of sheer self interest. Maybe explains your attitude to Johnson too.

Tbf...at no time have I suggested any such scheme could be ‘grandfathered down to past students’. Indeed I made it very clear that 43 years ago I qualified with negligible debt and excellent employment prospects.
Times however have changed...it is those qualifying today, or from the last decade or so, that I refer to, and all I have suggested is that those who, having spent time and money qualifying, then spend their working lives working for the good/betterment of society, might be rewarded in this way.

I’d also entirely agree with Tricky’s proviso from his final sentence.

That's better than your previous working directly for the state. But how would you determine working for the good of society?

Would you include any of the following, accountants working for health companies, architects for building companies who have built schools, roads, hospitals or even HS2? Or maybe researchers for pharmaceutical companies?

The list is very long and the idea is unworkable, its not as if these people aren't being paid for what they're doing.