By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - (Deputy Prime Minister) Nick Clegg: UK a 'more liberal nation' by 2015

Kasz216 on 17 July 2010
NoddyHolder said:
Pyro as Bill said:

"explointing others for personal gain when you contribute less than most of them to society and humanity."

Wha..?

Exploiting the rich by stealing half of the wealth they generate, when you contribute less than ANY of them to society and humanity.


bullshit.

CEO's, Actors, Athletes, all paid stupid money for jobs that contribute litle or nothing to humanity or society.

Nurses work long and hard for the benefit of society and humanity yet get mediocre wages at best.

its not stealing if you dont deserve it or earn it anyway.

That's... not even remotely true.

Do you kow how much money those people generate it's scary.

LeBron james for example is leaving Cleveland for Miami.   The City of Cleveland expects to lose 200 million dollars in revenue for the city next year alone.  Entire buisnesses in downtown are expected to fail.

CEO's, Actors and Atheletes generate all kinds of money... why else do you think they are paid what they are paid?  Cause owners and movie studios like losing money?

Lebron James or WIll Smtih is worth WAAAAAY more then any individual and WAAAAAAAY less replaceable.  Some teacher doesn't like his pay, there are plenty of other talented teachers.   Will Smith doesn't like his pay... you aren't going to find another Will smith.

How much is too much to pay someone who creates hundreds of millions of dollars worth of buisness a year?



Around the Network
numonex on 17 July 2010

Harsh IR laws are on the way and they will hurt the most disadvantaged UK citizens. Possible return to serfdom and slavery coming very soon. Tories are in government and they can be extremely harsh when they apply the harsh elements. Unemployment, disability, aged and other welfare pensions will be reduced. 750,000 Public service jobs will be cut. Private sector will lose 600,000 jobs as a result of the Public service losses. Apparently the private sector will create 2 million new  jobs.

Austerity measures in the UK under a Tory government will do more harm than good. Higher unemployment rates as the economy goes down further. Increased taxes and Budget cuts. VAT increased from 17.5% to 20%, this will slow down consumer spending. Tax rates will be increased which will have biggest impact on low and middle socio-economic people. 

National Health System could be fully sold off and privatised. Tories are in power and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 



Kasz216 on 17 July 2010

Also, it should be noted that by banning private healthcare you would literally be condeming people to death who didn't have to die.

Anything not covered by the government would be a death sentence.



FaRmLaNd on 18 July 2010
NoddyHolder said:
FaRmLaNd said:

How about no faith schools at all?

One can dream...


sadly, the current goverment wants to create more of them in the UK.

they should be banned.

Completely agree.



Scruff7 on 18 July 2010
Kasz216 said:
Scruff7 said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Because there are no private sector alternatives to David Cameron's job. The wage for a public sector worker working for, say the Treasury, is high because they need to compete with the wages offered by the financial institutions. Those jobs require a similar skill set and education, so the Treasury needs to make it worthwhile for the people to choose working for them over working for, say, Goldman Sachs, or Barclays Investment.

The same goes for high level public sector workers across the board. The NHS is competing with Bupa for health care specialists, but also just for managerial jobs in general with the private sector.

simple solution, ban private healthcare. (education too)

So everyone is instead stuck with the standard shitty options... rigggggght.

Oh, and also... government now has no incentive to improve those shitty options since they now have no competition.

Brilliant idea.

they will improve them because people will want better education, and in a decent democracy, the government will listen and invest and impove both healthcare and education.

if you are saying that the USA/UK are not decent democracies, then I agree.

No... most people won't want a better education.  At least not if it's going to cost them money.  Have you never lived in a community that had to pass a school levy before?

The people who want better education tend to stop at people with kids when it comes to the votes.  Even then plenty of said group doesn't want to vote for it because of the horrible way most schools spend school levies.

With no Private schools there will be no frame of refrence for "better"... people will think it's fine.

Private institutions show the ineefficencies and flaws of public ones.

Afterall if private companies do a better job cheaper AND make a profit you know something is wrong with the public versions.


I believe your assumption that people won't want better education is possibly true, but the reasoning demonstrates what is wrong with those opinions.

The benefits of a bette educations system is not isolated to those who receive the education, the whole of society benefits. If a country has a better educated workforce, it's more likely to attract more business, international investment and increasing levels of employment.

This brings in more capital, the country gets richer, people have more money because they are employed in a strong economy and there are increased tax returns which allow for better public services.

Higher education also has knock on affects, including improved health, better social environment and reduced crime.

And even if there weren't private schools, you can still compare education to other countries, to other state schools and overall edcuation levels.

You can then see why having a really good quality, state education system benefits the whole of society. Cutting back on education will only cause long term problems, increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less investment and a weaker national economy. I don't think any of us want that.

Except maybe those who can afford to send their children to private schools, get their children into the top universities and can ensure their children a good job through nepotism. They are the ones who can afford private healthcare, tax haven status, and extra security to keep the 'local ruffians' out.

You are argueing from a fantasy perspective, plain and simple.  If it's not true now, it's not going to be true when you make it harder for it to be so.

Of course... that's pretty much how you've been arugeing everything.

You are saying "People will want better education because of all these reasons even though most of them don't care now."

I'm not entirely sure why you believe these are fantasy arguments when they clearly are not, especially considering the parliament agrees.

Are you attempting to argue that cutting back on education will not cause long term problems such as increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less foreign investment and a weaker national economy?

If you are, then i think you have a very poor understating of state policy, politics, and international economics.



Atari 2600, Sega Mega Drive, Game Boy, Game Boy Advanced, N64, Playstation, Xbox, PSP Phat, PSP 3000, and PS3 60gb (upgraded to 320gb), NDS

Linux Ubuntu user

Favourite game: Killzone 3

Around the Network
NoddyHolder on 18 July 2010
Scruff7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Scruff7 said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Because there are no private sector alternatives to David Cameron's job. The wage for a public sector worker working for, say the Treasury, is high because they need to compete with the wages offered by the financial institutions. Those jobs require a similar skill set and education, so the Treasury needs to make it worthwhile for the people to choose working for them over working for, say, Goldman Sachs, or Barclays Investment.

The same goes for high level public sector workers across the board. The NHS is competing with Bupa for health care specialists, but also just for managerial jobs in general with the private sector.

simple solution, ban private healthcare. (education too)

So everyone is instead stuck with the standard shitty options... rigggggght.

Oh, and also... government now has no incentive to improve those shitty options since they now have no competition.

Brilliant idea.

they will improve them because people will want better education, and in a decent democracy, the government will listen and invest and impove both healthcare and education.

if you are saying that the USA/UK are not decent democracies, then I agree.

No... most people won't want a better education.  At least not if it's going to cost them money.  Have you never lived in a community that had to pass a school levy before?

The people who want better education tend to stop at people with kids when it comes to the votes.  Even then plenty of said group doesn't want to vote for it because of the horrible way most schools spend school levies.

With no Private schools there will be no frame of refrence for "better"... people will think it's fine.

Private institutions show the ineefficencies and flaws of public ones.

Afterall if private companies do a better job cheaper AND make a profit you know something is wrong with the public versions.


I believe your assumption that people won't want better education is possibly true, but the reasoning demonstrates what is wrong with those opinions.

The benefits of a bette educations system is not isolated to those who receive the education, the whole of society benefits. If a country has a better educated workforce, it's more likely to attract more business, international investment and increasing levels of employment.

This brings in more capital, the country gets richer, people have more money because they are employed in a strong economy and there are increased tax returns which allow for better public services.

Higher education also has knock on affects, including improved health, better social environment and reduced crime.

And even if there weren't private schools, you can still compare education to other countries, to other state schools and overall edcuation levels.

You can then see why having a really good quality, state education system benefits the whole of society. Cutting back on education will only cause long term problems, increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less investment and a weaker national economy. I don't think any of us want that.

Except maybe those who can afford to send their children to private schools, get their children into the top universities and can ensure their children a good job through nepotism. They are the ones who can afford private healthcare, tax haven status, and extra security to keep the 'local ruffians' out.

You are argueing from a fantasy perspective, plain and simple.  If it's not true now, it's not going to be true when you make it harder for it to be so.

Of course... that's pretty much how you've been arugeing everything.

You are saying "People will want better education because of all these reasons even though most of them don't care now."

I'm not entirely sure why you believe these are fantasy arguments when they clearly are not, especially considering the parliament agrees.

Are you attempting to argue that cutting back on education will not cause long term problems such as increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less foreign investment and a weaker national economy?

If you are, then i think you have a very poor understating of state policy, politics, and international economics.

I think that last sentence sums up many of the people on this sites views.

arrogant self righteous pigs who ignore anything that might challenge there greedy world views.



FootballFan on 18 July 2010
NoddyHolder said:
Scruff7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Scruff7 said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
Kasz216 said:
NoddyHolder said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Because there are no private sector alternatives to David Cameron's job. The wage for a public sector worker working for, say the Treasury, is high because they need to compete with the wages offered by the financial institutions. Those jobs require a similar skill set and education, so the Treasury needs to make it worthwhile for the people to choose working for them over working for, say, Goldman Sachs, or Barclays Investment.

The same goes for high level public sector workers across the board. The NHS is competing with Bupa for health care specialists, but also just for managerial jobs in general with the private sector.

simple solution, ban private healthcare. (education too)

So everyone is instead stuck with the standard shitty options... rigggggght.

Oh, and also... government now has no incentive to improve those shitty options since they now have no competition.

Brilliant idea.

they will improve them because people will want better education, and in a decent democracy, the government will listen and invest and impove both healthcare and education.

if you are saying that the USA/UK are not decent democracies, then I agree.

No... most people won't want a better education.  At least not if it's going to cost them money.  Have you never lived in a community that had to pass a school levy before?

The people who want better education tend to stop at people with kids when it comes to the votes.  Even then plenty of said group doesn't want to vote for it because of the horrible way most schools spend school levies.

With no Private schools there will be no frame of refrence for "better"... people will think it's fine.

Private institutions show the ineefficencies and flaws of public ones.

Afterall if private companies do a better job cheaper AND make a profit you know something is wrong with the public versions.


I believe your assumption that people won't want better education is possibly true, but the reasoning demonstrates what is wrong with those opinions.

The benefits of a bette educations system is not isolated to those who receive the education, the whole of society benefits. If a country has a better educated workforce, it's more likely to attract more business, international investment and increasing levels of employment.

This brings in more capital, the country gets richer, people have more money because they are employed in a strong economy and there are increased tax returns which allow for better public services.

Higher education also has knock on affects, including improved health, better social environment and reduced crime.

And even if there weren't private schools, you can still compare education to other countries, to other state schools and overall edcuation levels.

You can then see why having a really good quality, state education system benefits the whole of society. Cutting back on education will only cause long term problems, increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less investment and a weaker national economy. I don't think any of us want that.

Except maybe those who can afford to send their children to private schools, get their children into the top universities and can ensure their children a good job through nepotism. They are the ones who can afford private healthcare, tax haven status, and extra security to keep the 'local ruffians' out.

You are argueing from a fantasy perspective, plain and simple.  If it's not true now, it's not going to be true when you make it harder for it to be so.

Of course... that's pretty much how you've been arugeing everything.

You are saying "People will want better education because of all these reasons even though most of them don't care now."

I'm not entirely sure why you believe these are fantasy arguments when they clearly are not, especially considering the parliament agrees.

Are you attempting to argue that cutting back on education will not cause long term problems such as increased crime, a poorer, less skilled workforce, less foreign investment and a weaker national economy?

If you are, then i think you have a very poor understating of state policy, politics, and international economics.

I think that last sentence sums up many of the people on this sites views.

arrogant self righteous pigs who ignore anything that might challenge there greedy world views.

If you have to resort to insults every time someone says something you don't agree with then you might as well leave the site. I think you will find your the ignorant one not willing to hear out anyone elses opinion and then labelling people as "pigs","idiots" and "Right-wing retards".



NoddyHolder on 18 July 2010

sorry, did you post something, all  i read was "oink, oink, oink"



FootballFan on 18 July 2010
NoddyHolder said:

sorry, did you post something, all  i read was "oink, oink, oink"

Here we go again...



SamuelRSmith on 18 July 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
NoddyHolder said:
FaRmLaNd said:

How about no faith schools at all?

One can dream...


sadly, the current goverment wants to create more of them in the UK.

they should be banned.

Completely agree.


Why? Faith schools are some of the best schools in the country. They are fortunate in the fact that they receive extra funding, they produce the highest results, and tend to have the best records on things such as punctuality. How can some people claim that education is one of the most important things to a continued, prosperous society (which I agree with, and, so does every other sane person) on one hand, whilst on the other want to shut down some of the best institutions for providing education in the country. Based on what? Opposition to religion?