Pope John XXIII - 26/2/2017 17:00
Skip_4 - 26/2/2017 15:47
Couldn't agree more Feco, we need to address the skills shortage in this country with proper apprenticeships and a more balanced education system in terms of the academic/vocational focus.
It was Labour who decided to put arbitrary targets on the number going to university, 50% I think it was initially. It helped with the unemployment figures of course but didn't automatically make everyone smarter, and there are nowhere near enough jobs to support this. I know the sector very well but even if you didn't, we clearly have far too many kids going to University, does it help anyone in the long run?
You keep bashing the Labour Party of Blair and putting the blame on them. Sorry, I know you are a Tory but this goes back to Thatcher- and before that, the Trade Unions. Before I start I should point out my own biases- politically I am ex-Labour; homeless party-wise in the Corbyn era.
Labour did indeed put a 50% target on university. This was by no means a bad thing. Why on earth would anyone think a population haven't a high level of education could be a bad thing?
Finland have an 80% university attendance rate
with women and nearly that with men. Their education system is frequently at the top of rankings (I've spend time in one of their schools) and their literacy is streets ahead of ours. Having parents that are university educated is not a bad thing. Having whole community's that are highly educated is a wonderful thing.
Do you think the Finns would elect Donald Trump? No chance. But the Americans, where some states have education systems that fail to match up to the developing world are a nation that shows what happens when ignorance wins.
The reality is, Thatcher destroyed whole communities for ideological reasons. Seduced by Neo-liberalism, she attacked the respectable working class mercilessly, devastating communities without any thought to how to replace the industries she eliminated.
She did this because she absolutely believed in market economics. She believed that the market would always sort itself out if just left alone. There was no evidence for this and plenty against, with this laissez-faire approach having been abandoned 100 years before.
So she closed the mines, she sold off industry, she destroyed the industry of most northern cities and assumed the market would adjust. And it didn't. The financial services she created in the south thrived. But with no govt interference the north lived on scraps.
This in turn was an ideological crusade born from the utter pisstaking of the unions in the 1960's and 70's. Pompous windbags managed to take control and make a career out of causing trouble. They made industry uncompetitive, reluctant to modernise and hopelessly unprofitable while believeing they could interfere in politics. Their final defeat in 1984 was inevitable- they had become a malevolent force and gave Thatcher the excuse she needed to behead the working class.
So what has happened? The traditional working class barely exists. In the 50's and 60's, if you were born working class that is largely where you stayed. But they were respectable, responsible and the best could have positions of real power and respect in the community.
Since then, the top half have ascended to the middle class. Some have become very wealthy. There are many in that category on here, including myself (not the wealth bit)
But some have sunk. I have encountered many children and families who are 3rd generation unemployed, who know no one who works and not one of them in the family is capable of working due to addiction or mental Illness. Whole communities where the only work is minimum wage shop jobs, the only local shops are pound shops, betting shops, off licences and tanning salons. Families where mental illness is endemic and addiction to something is expected.
There are no jobs for them. I've taught the children of this group. Many wouldn't be capable of a retail job; they would not be mentally able to cope with the unpredictability. You are talking about kids who freak out and truant because they can't cope with the idea of a cover lesson or even their normal lesson taking place in a different room.
These families have always existed. But they could work in repetitive, predictable work in the mines, on assembly lines, on factory floors. They did the same thing all the time and gained respectability and responsibility without having the pressure of having to think quickly on their feet. That is why retail jobs were well paid, because it was thinking work.
But those jobs are almost universally gone now.
So for me, the idea of a higher % of people having gone to university makes sense because that is the way the world is moving- to skilled, thinking work. It's an obvious answer to a massive problem. Probably not the right answer per se, but a much better attempt than Cameron ever tried