Jump to content

Recommended Posts



I never suggested we should be immune DaveR... but a 40% cut in teaching funds? ??*@&!*>?

we already do hours and hours and hours of additional unpaid time

40%.... ouch ouch ouch... that is very very harsh

feels like the cuts are being landed on a soft target... the only people who suffer if we strike are the students, so we will not do that.. feels like our hands are tied...

and I have yet so see any clear rationale from government (in fact forget 'clear' just any justification) explaining how the decision has been made...

http://rlv.zcache.com/bound_records_hands_tied_poster-p228277985603209237tdar_210.jpg

charliex2, I was just responding to your somewhat hyperbolic post (the one with the toilet pic)


A 40% cut in teaching funds probably = a reduction in the number of degree places to the position of about 10 years ago, although in practice it will be implemented in a number of different ways. It's harsh, but HE is an area that expanded rapidly, and although spending didn't rise as fast as student numbers, it did go up. You can argue for a smaller cut, but where should the axe fall instead? Or you can argue for no cuts (like the student demonstrators) and pretend that it's all the banks fault, and that there's no such thing as a sovereign debt crisis.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Olivia - an interesting idea. The trouble is

> that

> > I barely trust vast swathes of the population to

>

> > leave the house in the morning with their pants

> on

> > the right way round.

> >

> > I have enough trouble allowing these people to

> > vote let alone have direct control of fiscal

> > allocation. All the money would be spent on

> > Facebook causes and the Richard & Judy book

> club.

>

> Is this your formal opinion as a Party member?


No, my informal opinion having a hatred of the "general public". They know nothing. ;-)

Ref an much earlier comment...


UK is a great place to do business or to own a business?


For employees on a higher tax rate in 2011, they'll be paying 40% income tax, 11% national insurance and 20% VAT on every 'non-vital' purchase. If you own a business you'll be paying yourself in dividends at 18% tax, and minimum NI contributions.


This means for employees in the private sector for every ?1 they generate, they'll be getting 39p back in goods and services. The rest of it isn't just paying teachers, nurses, pensioners and soldiers - it's also paying ingrates, loungers and fraudsters.


I think the electorate can be forgiven for demanding that the cash is spent wisely. 750,000 graduates in medieval linguistics might not count as 'wise' for everyone. It seems extremely wise for those lecturers and students who get employ in this area and can be forgiven for declaring 'Don't break our hearts'.


The only way that this doesn't look like a rip off is if you believe in Soviet style socialism.


As many of you know, I now live in Singapore, which has a means tested but exceptional health service, is amongst the top 3 globally for public funded edcuation, a dementedly ambitious war machine, a personal savings plan welfare system and zero local resources - and I pay 7% tax. Crazy stuff.


In the UK, dependent on where you are, between 25%-30% of the local population is employed by the state. That's huge. Their salaries are all paid by those people paying tax in the private sector.


Students? Give me a break. I don't want shag happy teenagers making decisions that affect my life. Two years previous they had their willy in their hand for the first time full of the slack jawed wonder that it 'feels nice'.


As for 'universal suffrage', it only works effectively in an environemnt of informed consent. I don't think the general population is daft, but I don't credit them with a desire to either be informed or know what they're consenting to. There's plenty of people on various threads on this forum complaining that I keep bringing 'statistics' into debates that would otherwise be ideological mooning.


That's the graveyard of Quids ideal - it's not referendums, it's mob rule.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ref an much earlier comment...

>

> UK is a great place to do business or to own a

> business?


I still think both. If you're starting up you have numerous government grants and incentives (many targeted at fringe economic areas), recognition, legislation and support for SME's (the excellent state funded Business Link service, Prince's Trust) and what I think is a more than generous tax on business activity (just 21% Corp tax on profits for small business vs 32%+ Germany and France, entrepreneurs relief at 10% rewarding risk to create jobs etc).


We have a strong geographic positioning - ignore the the doomsayers, London is still at top 2 hub for finance - and a healthy, diverse domestic market for goods and services.


Right now, in the middle of the "deepest recession for 70 years" the buildings around our modest office are bustling with freshly formed 1-5 man enterprises, all taking advantage of this and current low overheads to launch new goods and services. Forget what you read in the papers - this is the reality on the ground. These are the businesses of the future. Training staff, creating jobs and corporation tax for UK PLC coffers....and public services. It's largely thanks to an evolving UK business environment set by both labour and tory policy since the late 70's that we're able to do this.


When you have all this support the rest really is up to the individual involved. Poor Emerson above sounds like a man for whom the wind will always be in his face and for whom failure will always be the fault of somebody else.



> For employees on a higher tax rate in 2011,

> they'll be paying 40% income tax, 11% national

> insurance and 20% VAT on every 'non-vital'

> purchase. If you own a business you'll be paying

> yourself in dividends at 18% tax, and minimum NI

> contributions.


Is this a good country to be an employee? I think yes too. Employment rights, paternity leave, sick pay and just 20% income tax if you earn less than ?38k, and your first 10k is tax free . Even at higher rate, 40% is not out of whack with the rest of the world, especially given our public welfare burden which our business environment helps to support. Singapore (which needs to punch above it's weight) is not a great like for like comparison.


Pedant's note -dividends are not taxed at 18% (I think you mean CGT Huge?). It's 10% up to the higher rate then 25% thereafter after tax credits apply. These rates are tiered to effectively reward investment in profitable enterprise = jobs = CGT and tax revenue = student's tuition fees and the rest....

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a resident of Singapore sort of HAS to be complimentary about

> the place


Quite. Not to mention the fact that we're not comparing like-with-like. If we put up a border around London and turned it into a totalitarian state, I dare say we'd also have low taxes.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...