Comrade Corbyn to the fore - whither (or wither) the Labour Party?

Won't be that bad.

One thing decades of privatisation has generated is a set of managers who can work on fumes; stop syphoning money away and let them do the necessary in infrastructure, training and recruitment i suspect things will improve.

I'm curr working with a few 50-something National Grid guys, Tories to a man, who are remarkably sanguine.


Dunno about the trains, but bringing a national rail network under one control can't be a bad idea, can it?
Such a good idea, it's already in existence:

Network Rail – we run, look after and improve Britain's railway
 
'Thatcher closed all the mines! She put us out of work' - the endless whining refrain from todays northern monkeys.

Funny thing is, I was in the Merchant Navy during Thatcher Years, and a surprising number of young lads from mining communities were joining up.

'How come you didn't go down the Mines, pays bloody well'?

'The old mans a miner, no f'ing way was he going to let me go down the mines'

Funny how todays SJW's miss the fact most miners in the day didn't want their sons doing such a shit job.
When I was in the TA in the mid-80s our NRPS SQMS was an ex-RWF WO2 from Merthyr. I remember asking him once why he joined up and his reply was that it was either that or down the pit. Joining the Army was the least worst option.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I couldn't find one in my brief google (I like to present a balanced picture, but one can only do so much ...). TBF to Jeremy, though, I couldn't find many of him smiling anyway.
I'm just... well... as a man who worked assiduously for both sides of the peace process in Northern Ireland, there must... surely... somewhere... no?
 
@headgear I have always thought that the Blair concept came from an idea that graduates earn more. To move the poor out of poverty they should be given the opportunity to do a degree as it was clear that graduates earn more. Unfortunately not everyone was capable of work at that level.
It was either well meant or deliberately done to curry the youth vote (most likely in my opinion!) but like many socialist driven ideas incredibly naive -flooding the market with any product inevitably drops its value and also encourages sales tricks to gain advantage - in the case of students, we have created numbers of graduates that far and away exceed the requirment in industry so prospective employees had to reduce their expectations wrt to salary and industry could tell them to take it or leave it - strangely enough seeing non graduates as far more useful to their organisation as they could be taken on young and trained, giving loyalty to their employer in return. The damage Tony Blair did with this single policy is incredible and that is without considering mass uncontrolled immigration, selling of the gold reserves, PFI, illegal wars and many more
 
When I was in the TA in the mid-80s our NRPS SQMS was an ex-RWF WO2 from Merthyr. I remember asking him once why he joined up and his reply was that it was either that or down the pit. Joining the Army was the least worst option.

To be honest, If I lived in Merthyr, being sold into sexual slavery as a Gimp would be preferable to staying in that hellhole
 
Last edited:

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Have you seen the chaos those clowns leave after a weekend of "planned engineering work"? My whole line was shutdown this morning due to "signalling problems in the Crayford area", the exact area where they were working yesterday!
That's 'nationalisation' for you!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It was either well meant or deliberately done to curry the youth vote (most likely in my opinion!) but like many socialist driven ideas incredibly naive -flooding the market with any product inevitably drops its value and also encourages sales tricks to gain advantage - in the case of students, we have created numbers of graduates that far and away exceed the requirment in industry so prospective employees had to reduce their expectations wrt to salary and industry could tell them to take it or leave it - strangely enough seeing non graduates as far more useful to their organisation as they could be taken on young and trained, giving loyalty to their employer in return. The damage Tony Blair did with this single policy is incredible and that is without considering mass uncontrolled immigration, selling of the gold reserves, PFI, illegal wars and many more
It was done to get the youth unemployment figures down - which were a real concern politically for a party that was supposed to be about aspiration and progress.

Got too many youths sitting on the dole? Stick 'em into full-time education. Oh, and then charge them for the privilege - don't forget which party introduced student fees.
 
To my mind, how you can give a pass to anyone who scores less than 50 percent is ridiculous. 30 percent is just taking the proverbial.
Yep.

I can see the justification to a degree (sorry!) for insisting on a degree. It suggests a given level of confidence in subject knowledge, as well as associated skills - literacy, numeracy and articulacy. However, the levels of all three of the latter (together with a smattering of common sense) just don't seem to be there any more. I've met some moronic 'graduates'.
An observation my wife has made from her tutoring work.

(I have, by token, met some very bright kids. Blame the system, sometimes at least, rather than the raw material.)
Glad you said that - there is a bit of a tendency appearing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The intent of the degree, as you imply earlier, is partly to act as a capability filter. Unfortunately, it's turning out to be a broadband pass filter, not a high pass filter.

I think part of the problem is prescriptive teaching, and teaching to the exam. I've detailed this before: the barmaid in my local knows I write for a living and asked me to look over a paper she was doing for a degree in caring for children with difficulties. I read the paper, suggested a few grammatical changes, and then made some observations about how she might broaden the content.

Her response was that she had been told that her answers had to be based around a single chapter in a single book. Basically, hers was a comprehension and retention exercise. It wasn't about expanding upon a point and developing thinking. It was closing thinking. It was what I would have been expected to do in English at O-level. To my mind, it wasn't degree-level learning.

But back to those exam boards: when students were getting an 'A' at A-level in Maths but universities were still talking about having to give them foundation courses before they start the degree course, questions - hard questions (sorry again!) needed to be asked. There was a lot of pushback from the unions and those who make an 'industry' (as distinct from a profession) of education.
I think that last para may provide part of the answer to the problem you identify in the first two paras. No point in going for advanced thinking when elementary thinking is not a given.

My wife tutors students with learning difficulties. Most of them have somehow managed to get good Highers or A-Levels without having the first clue about organization and the basics of essay writing. Some, she says, are very good and disciplined and put the effort in to overcome their (sometimes profound) difficulties, most struggle but get on with it, but several ... well, they appear to live in excuse land, with several banging out when the going gets tough. I think I've mentioned before that schools could do with adding 'robustness' training to the curriculum.

When I said that degreeifiction (yes, that has become the accepted term, whatever spell checker says) was an international phenomenon, I had in mind some of the articles I've written for magazines in the maritime sector. You can now get a degree in Seamanship, for instance. I think part of the problem is that some of these things are called degrees because no-one has come up with another term - one that doesn't offend/keeps everyone happy.
I believe that there are various frameworks that dictate what kind of award should be awarded for what level of knowledge or expertise, for example, the EQF.



(Don't expect the linkage between UK and EU qualifications to magically disappear following Brexit!)

Just some thoughts. None of this explains how someone with 26 years of competence wasn't seen to be competent. No doubt there's a matrix that someone in HR can use to justify that to you.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it would be worth mapping skills and knowledge to the stated job requirements and, if there's no obvious gap, seek a bit of advice from CAB or similar ('discrimination' is a nice word to bandy about, apparently). The other thing is that it sometimes pays to be pushy and speak directly to HR rather than accept a standard HR rejection (might have already been done, of course).
 
When I first joined battalion, 1 RRF, I was curious about all the jocks. It is an English regiment, so why was it full of jocks? Turns out, most came from Warwickshire, Rugby etc. Their families moved south from the Scottish coalfields after Labour closed the pits in the sixties and seventies.
 
It’s been going on for years in one form or another.

Mid 80’s Grad Officers had an accelerated promotion profile which (correct me if I’m wrong someone) meant they climbed the time based promotion ladder 2Lt-Capt with a head start of 100% of years spent at Uni. We had one who had spent 4 years studying Egyptology who then became an overnight expert in Armoured Warfare and an almost overnight Capt. He improved his standing immeasurably by moaning to the Adjt that subbies weren’t saluting him first thing in the morning.
The old "Excuse me, sir, are you a real officer or just a graduate?" schtick. ;-)
 
It was either well meant or deliberately done to curry the youth vote (most likely in my opinion!) but like many socialist driven ideas incredibly naive -flooding the market with any product inevitably drops its value and also encourages sales tricks to gain advantage - in the case of students, we have created numbers of graduates that far and away exceed the requirment in industry so prospective employees had to reduce their expectations wrt to salary and industry could tell them to take it or leave it - strangely enough seeing non graduates as far more useful to their organisation as they could be taken on young and trained, giving loyalty to their employer in return. The damage Tony Blair did with this single policy is incredible and that is without considering mass uncontrolled immigration, selling of the gold reserves, PFI, illegal wars and many more

This…

See Civil Service

Was a time a Degree got you in the door as a C2, middle manager, on £33K

Now? They are taking on bottom rung E1's with Degrees on £19k
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Dunno about the trains, but bringing a national rail network under one control can't be a bad idea, can it?
I take it you don't remember BR then.

I do, and it was awful.
 
Poor - You've got somewhat less than fuck all
Rich - You can fly a kite in your lounge.
I was born with feck all.
I left school with 3 'A' s but feck all.
I worked all my life expecting nothing from the state and am now comfortably retired in my own place with a pension that is doing better than when I retired due to those evil financiers.
 
Dunno about the trains, but bringing a national rail network under one control can't be a bad idea, can it?
You do realise that the bit of the railway that is under national control - Network Rail - is the one that causes most of the delays?
 

Latest Threads

Top