Jump to content
dylanisabaddog

By-election results

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Tuition fees were first introduced under Tony Blair and have been rising ever since. The Tories and Lib Dems are just as culpable but the rot started under Blair.

How many billions have been spent servicing the debts incurred from his use of PFI’s? How many extra healthcare facilities could have been built if we hadn’t had to hand over all that cash to private interests simply because of Blair’s short termism? 

The fact you can no longer see a doctor may have something to do with the extra 10 million people who have arrived in the last 20 years with very little accompanying infrastructure.

I hate Blair, and I hate the fact I voted for him (although I feel that way about most of those I vote for, I tend to have to pick the least worst option at the time). He was simply a continuation of Thatcherism 

 

 

The 10m people who have arrived on average create more wealth and pay more tax than the indigenous population. There is only one reason for the problem with the NHS and that is the Conservative Party. We are seeing it again now. Tory MPs and voters screaming for tax cuts whilst the NHS is laying in tatters. 

PFI was required because there was no money. Thatcher had given it all away, including the oil money. The Scandinavians in contrast quietly put it to one side for a rainy day. 

How many hospitals could we build if she hadn't done that? At least 40......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The 10m people who have arrived on average create more wealth and pay more tax than the indigenous population. There is only one reason for the problem with the NHS and that is the Conservative Party. We are seeing it again now. Tory MPs and voters screaming for tax cuts whilst the NHS is laying in tatters. 

PFI was required because there was no money. Thatcher had given it all away, including the oil money. The Scandinavians in contrast quietly put it to one side for a rainy day. 

How many hospitals could we build if she hadn't done that? At least 40......

It depends where those immigrants are from and what job they do though doesn’t it. Those arriving from the eastern bloc that joined the EU in 03 earn on average around 25% less than the average salary. I very much doubt all these coming in from India through the abuse of the student visas earn above the national average either. All that does is put pressure on salaries, house prices and public services. If we had imported doctors and nurses rather than baristas and car washers then it wouldn’t be such an issue but we haven’t. However I’ve spent too long on this board explaining my reasons for wanting immigration reduced and it’s not a subject I can really be bothered revisiting as it usually just descends into lazy accusations of bigotry.

Our tax to GDP ratio is also above the OECD average so calling for tax cuts is a perfectly legitimate political argument. It’s not one I agree with personally, I think we need to tax wealth more than we currently do (as opposed to labour) as I’d rather have better public services but disagreements are why we have democracy. There’s no right or wrong way of thinking, it’s just a case of trying to convince a majority your opinion is the best one going forward.

We also spend much more on healthcare as a % of GDP than we did under Blair so I don’t think it’s as simple as blaming Tory cuts for its problems. The problems are numerous and will take years of reform to fix properly unfortunately, capacity being the major one (which again comes back to a massively increasing population).

You’ll get no defence of Thatcher from me. Her neoliberalism that was continued by Blair destroyed the lives of millions and cost the country billions, but Blair’s PFIs simply kicked the fan down the road making it even more expensive in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2024 at 14:37, Barbe bleu said:

Under starmer Labour seem to be whatever the tories are, but "more competent" at whatever that is.

I'm disappointed that the Greens didn't pick up at these elections. Their non appearance after Labour ditched the £28 billion committment means that Labour will feel it safe not to make green pledges and that's going to be bad for us all.

We need the Green party to really push the environmental agenda and to appeal across the spectrum, rather than be a socialist party with green bits. We need the greens to push the next government on environmental issues in the same way that Reform and UKIP have pushed the last few on Europe etc.

Completely agree with the bit in bold in essence, but this is where Birdie and I will invariably chirrup that this is how our electoral model sucks badly and how PR helps much more. I don't think the Greens in Germany (who, if you're looking for a lazy, brief analysis, are essentially an environmentally conscious and economically left-of-centre party) would have got near a coalition without their version of PR in place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The problems are numerous and will take years of reform to fix properly unfortunately, capacity being the major one (which again comes back to a massively increasing population).

You’ll get no defence of Thatcher from me. Her neoliberalism that was continued by Blair destroyed the lives of millions and cost the country billions,

Quoted part of your post...the part I agree most with. I didn't vote for Blair for the same reason as you've stated. Though, I did want his administration to succeed (like I do any really). I felt his immigration policy post Bosnia conflict was ill-advised too, if at the same time, completely understanding his intentions.

The problems are indeed rooted over a long period but our electoral system will not help with a long term answer. It's adversarial to the point of being ludicrous - especially when the Tories and Labour often end up being versions of each other. And the population being centrist on the whole (influenced by the same system).

The present lot have taken things to extremes for me. And it was an article in the New York Times a couple of years ago which rings true. It is often interesting to read an outside view of UK politics. This is bang on the nail. 

We need change drastically don't we?

IMG_20240219_092329.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Quoted part of your post...the part I agree most with. I didn't vote for Blair for the same reason as you've stated. Though, I did want his administration to succeed (like I do any really). I felt his immigration policy post Bosnia conflict was ill-advised too, if at the same time, completely understanding his intentions.

The problems are indeed rooted over a long period but our electoral system will not help with a long term answer. It's adversarial to the point of being ludicrous - especially when the Tories and Labour often end up being versions of each other. And the population being centrist on the whole (influenced by the same system).

The present lot have taken things to extremes for me. And it was an article in the New York Times a couple of years ago which rings true. It is often interesting to read an outside view of UK politics. This is bang on the nail. 

We need change drastically don't we?

IMG_20240219_092329.jpg

I agree with most of that, unfortunately there’s almost nothing between both parties these days, just two neoliberal groups arguing who would most effectively implement their Blairist/Thatcherite policies.

At least with the last election you actually had daylight between them with Johnson’s levelling up and EU scepticism vs Corbyn’s old school leftism and more pro EU position, even if both leaders were incredibly flawed. Instead this time you’ve got Sunaks managerialism against Starmer who has yet to release an opinion on anything (at least one he hasn’t backtracked on) and whose only policy seems to be not being the Tories.

At least with PR it gives the minor parties the opportunity to put genuine pressure on the larger parties, even if it’s only on single issues. My politics have never lined up with any party in particular, but I don’t think I’ve ever detested all the options as much as I do this time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Tuition fees were first introduced under Tony Blair and have been rising ever since. The Tories and Lib Dems are just as culpable but the rot started under Blair.

£1000 p.a under Blair - then to £3000 p.a  2006/7

It jumped to £9000 under Cameron / Clegg.

You can argue Labour introduced it but at a far more modest level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

£1000 p.a under Blair - then to £3000 p.a  2006/7

It jumped to £9000 under Cameron / Clegg.

You can argue Labour introduced it but at a far more modest level. 

So Blair introduced it, then tripled that amount within 8 years? It has trebled again in the 15 years since? Doesn’t sound as if any party is covering themselves in glory on the matter to me.

£3000 in 06 is worth £5000 today according to the BoE calculator, so effectively Labour and the Tories are each responsible for around half of the current tuition fee amount

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

So Blair introduced it, then tripled that amount within 8 years? It has trebled again in the 15 years since? Doesn’t sound as if any party is covering themselves in glory on the matter to me.

£3000 in 06 is worth £5000 today according to the BoE calculator, so effectively Labour and the Tories are each responsible for around half of the current tuition fee amount

That's a strange way of putting it.

Obviously the Tories are 100% responsible for the current level. Did they actually vote against the rise to £3000 p.a ? I suspect not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So Blair introduced it, then tripled that amount within 8 years? It has trebled again in the 15 years since? Doesn’t sound as if any party is covering themselves in glory on the matter to me.

£3000 in 06 is worth £5000 today according to the BoE calculator, so effectively Labour and the Tories are each responsible for around half of the current tuition fee amount

This mans been talking maths lessons from JRM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The 10m people who have arrived on average create more wealth and pay more tax than the indigenous population. There is only one reason for the problem with the NHS and that is the Conservative Party. We are seeing it again now. Tory MPs and voters screaming for tax cuts whilst the NHS is laying in tatters. 

PFI was required because there was no money. Thatcher had given it all away, including the oil money. The Scandinavians in contrast quietly put it to one side for a rainy day. 

How many hospitals could we build if she hadn't done that? At least 40......

And that represents a massive failure of entire political class to invest in training and education for the domestic population in favour of importing cheaper labour, which has resulted in a large part of the domestic population losing its work ethic and giving up on themselves in favour of a life of handouts.

'PFI was required because there was no money' is a bit simplistic. There was nothing stopping putting those investments on the public ledger. PFI was simply a tactic to give the impression of spending less while saving up a big hit down the road. Even after the last few years, S&P still rates the UK economy AA with a stable outlook.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

That's a strange way of putting it.

Obviously the Tories are 100% responsible for the current level. Did they actually vote against the rise to £3000 p.a ? I suspect not.

What an utterly absurd statement. Tuition fees were introduced under a majority Labour government and twice increased under majority Labour governments, against statements by the Labour government that they wouldn't do any of them. If they'd been dependedent on Conservative votes then that would be another matter, but as it was policy of a majority government, the very existence of tuition fees is 100% Labour's responsibility.

The increases post-2010, can be laid at the Conservatives door, but as it was simply a continuation of a trend introduced by Labour it's a bit weak to absolve Labour of responsibility, particularly as the 2010 rises conformed to the recommendation's of Gordon Brown's report, which there's absolutely no doubt whatsover he'd have implemented based on Labour's record over the previous 13 years.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The increases post-2010, can be laid at the Conservatives door, 

Good. You agree. They've also had 13 odd years to think again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

This mans been talking maths lessons from JRM.

 

I hold both major parties equally responsible for the current levels of tuition fees. To claim otherwise in my eyes is simply partisan nonsense. Blair created them and tripled them, then the Tories tripled them again. Neither side will scrap them so it’s both their fault 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Good. You agree. They've also had 13 odd years to think again.

Do you think Starmer will abolish them when he gets in? I think we all know the answer to that so therefore tuition fees are a legacy of all three major parties 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Do you think Starmer will abolish them when he gets in? I think we all know the answer to that so therefore tuition fees are a legacy of all three major parties 

The current level (and interest charged) is clearly a result and the responsibility of the last 14 years of the Tories.

What an incoming Labour government decides to eventually do is for the future. Reform  / limit or even scrap.  Make of this what you will but clearly you can't prejudge!

At present they are simply an extra tax on our brighter youngsters stymieing their economic prospects. Most I understand just forget about it and many never repay all of it. It doesn't really seem a very good way to encourage or help our youngsters in the modern world set at the current levels. I guess GPS should charge £100/visit to help recover the odd £100,000 they incurred.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-66579963 

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The current level (and interest charged) is clearly a result and the responsibility of the last 14 years of the Tories.

What an incoming Labour government decides to eventually do is for the future. Reform  / limit or even scrap.  Make of this what you will but clearly you can't prejudge!

At present they are simply an extra tax on our brighter youngsters stymieing their economic prospects. Most I understand just forget about it and many never repay all of it. It doesn't really seem a very good way to encourage or help our youngsters in the modern world set at the current levels. I guess GPS should charge £100/visit to help recover the odd £100,000 they incurred.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-66579963 

So Labour created the tuition fees, trebled them and Starmer has ruled out scrapping them, but it’s all the fault of the Tories? I agree the Tories could have scrapped them if they wished, but to claim Labour are not to blame at all I think is simply wrong.

Ive no problem with funding further education, but it wouldn’t be sustainable to do so at current levels in my opinion. I don’t think we need over half of youngsters going to uni studying ever depreciating degrees. I think many would be better served through an increase in vocational training and apprenticeships but unfortunately it’s unlikely to happen. Our MPs by and large are now career politicians, having gone to uni then straight into politics so there’s very little diversity of thought or life experience in the place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So Labour created the tuition fees, trebled them and Starmer has ruled out scrapping them, but it’s all the fault of the Tories? I agree the Tories could have scrapped them if they wished, but to claim Labour are not to blame at all I think is simply wrong.

Ive no problem with funding further education, but it wouldn’t be sustainable to do so at current levels in my opinion. I don’t think we need over half of youngsters going to uni studying ever depreciating degrees. I think many would be better served through an increase in vocational training and apprenticeships but unfortunately it’s unlikely to happen. Our MPs by and large are now career politicians, having gone to uni then straight into politics so there’s very little diversity of thought or life experience in the place. 

There is a world of difference between tuition fees at £3000 and £9000 p.a.. A bit like trebling a mortgage.

The issue today is what to do going forward - 

The Tories could have addressed this at any stage over the last 14 years - indeed there were thoughts that it doesn't really 'save' any money as many such loans won't be repaid and eventually written off.

I might agree too many take non-vocational degrees (it seems many of such are in Houses of Parliament) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

There is a world of difference between tuition fees at £3000 and £9000 p.a.. A bit like trebling a mortgage.

The issue today is what to do going forward - 

The Tories could have addressed this at any stage over the last 14 years - indeed there were thoughts that it doesn't really 'save' any money as many such loans won't be repaid and eventually written off.

I might agree too many take non-vocational degrees (it seems many of such are in Houses of Parliament) 

Tuition fees are a wonderful political hot potato that shows how both parties right now can't actually do anything useful due to an election year.

  • Right now tuition fees are actually too low- universities make a loss on each home based student they take on and that was the case even pre inflation spikes.
  • Politically there is no appetite from either Tories or Labour to advocate for a rise in tuition fees as it would be a guaranteed vote loser.
  • Universities have previously plugged these gaps by recruiting international students they can charge more money to- however both parties don't wish to be seen as pro large scale migration, even though international students are a net benefit to the country AND polling suggests the public actually don't mind international students coming in. 
  • Both parties are mainly concerned with headline immigration figures and restricting international students and their dependents is an easy way to do that, even if it just causes further financial issues for Universities.
  • Neither party also wants to commit to large increases in public spending, even though cutting international student numbers and not raising tuition fees creates a gap that only government subsidy can fill.
  • Also the generally hostile environment to perfectly legal immigration and the uncertainty that government policy creates is already having a negative effect on international student numbers and thus university finances.
  • Finally, everyone's favourite silver bullet about too many students being on non-vocational courses (heaven forbid anyone learn something that isn't directly related to their future economic productivity) is a total red herring. STEM type courses cost significantly more to teach and actually students on arts and humanities degrees indirectly subsidise those courses. So cutting those sorts of courses actually makes the financial situation worse.
Edited by king canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to add, the British Higher Education system is the only successful export I know of that the Government tries to actively talk down. We have UK Universities with campuses, distance learning and franchises all over the world yet the government is happy to talk **** about it thus hurting its prestige and potential to help the UK economically. Imagine if we did the same with any other industry? You wouldn't find the home secretary talking saying 'Yeah it's good Vauxhall export lots of cars but lots of them aren't very good and you'd be better off buying a Peugeot' would you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I might agree too many take non-vocational degrees (it seems many of such are in Houses of Parliament) 

I had an interesting discussion last week with a Watford fan who is in the final year of his  business studies degree at the UEA. He confirmed something that I had experienced when teaching critical thinking skills to MA business and computing students in the midlands; that "vocational degrees" often lacked development of the communication skills required to be successful in the world of work. A common complaint was that humanities and arts students beat them in interviews because their courses had enabled them to argue their case far more confidently and effectively (they often called these "soft skills"). That's a purely anecdotal experience, of course, but I was myself surprised how often it was repeated. We shouldn't underestimate the hidden vocational relevance of courses that would never be described as vocational in syllabus content. As I said to that Watford fan; it is typically the character of the individual that the course has developed that will determine your future success, rather than the specific degree you have studied. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I had an interesting discussion last week with a Watford fan who is in the final year of his  business studies degree at the UEA. He confirmed something that I had experienced when teaching critical thinking skills to MA business and computing students in the midlands; that "vocational degrees" often lacked development of the communication skills required to be successful in the world of work. A common complaint was that humanities and arts students beat them in interviews because their courses had enabled them to argue their case far more confidently and effectively (they often called these "soft skills"). That's a purely anecdotal experience, of course, but I was myself surprised how often it was repeated. We shouldn't underestimate the hidden vocational relevance of courses that would never be described as vocational in syllabus content. As I said to that Watford fan; it is typically the character of the individual that the course has developed that will determine your future success, rather than the specific degree you have studied. 

Yes the softer skills you get from degrees can be underestimated. I studied at UEA and did 'Film and American Studies.' It has nothing to do with my job now but do I think the skills I gained there helped my career progression? Definitley.

That is also not to mention the idea that education should help create well rounded people with a variety of skills, not force them to decide on a career path and study with only that in mind aged 18.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I had an interesting discussion last week with a Watford fan who is in the final year of his  business studies degree at the UEA. He confirmed something that I had experienced when teaching critical thinking skills to MA business and computing students in the midlands; that "vocational degrees" often lacked development of the communication skills required to be successful in the world of work. A common complaint was that humanities and arts students beat them in interviews because their courses had enabled them to argue their case far more confidently and effectively (they often called these "soft skills"). That's a purely anecdotal experience, of course, but I was myself surprised how often it was repeated. We shouldn't underestimate the hidden vocational relevance of courses that would never be described as vocational in syllabus content. As I said to that Watford fan; it is typically the character of the individual that the course has developed that will determine your future success, rather than the specific degree you have studied. 

Yes HF - but that's where you have a vocational student presumably applying for 'non vocational' student job.

I don't think it would work at all the other way around.

That said, so called 'soft skills' aren't the preserve of just the non-vocational set although I would accept that the ability to form say a cohesive argument about characters in Shakespeare albeit based purely on fiction is a skill that can be migrated elsewhere! The problem however the UK repeatedly gets into in the modern world  (Covid by example) where decisions are based on statistics or to use the medical phrase 'evidence based' (c.f. homeopathy) and numerical data is the lack of any mathematical, statistical, science understanding in our largely 'non-vocational /STEM' based politicians or public at large. Simpy beyond them! Having to explain exponential growth I seem to recall was a classic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes HF - but that's where you have a vocational student presumably applying for 'non vocational' student job.

I don't think it would work at all the other way around.

That said, so called 'soft skills' aren't the preserve of just the non-vocational set although I would accept that the ability to form say a cohesive argument about characters in Shakespeare albeit based purely on fiction is a skill that can be migrated elsewhere! The problem however the UK repeatedly gets into in the modern world  (Covid by example) where decisions are based on statistics or to use the medical phrase 'evidence based' (c.f. homeopathy) and numerical data is the lack of any mathematical, statistical, science understanding in our largely 'non-vocational /STEM' based politicians or public at large. Simpy beyond them! Having to explain exponential growth I seem to recall was a classic!

I think that is a different argument though.

If we want more of a numerically literate population then you probably want to see more maths, statistics and economics taught in high school and maybe those studying humanities/arts having the chance (and being encouraged) to take optional modules/classes in these areas at uni. You don't need to have studied economics or statistics to degree level to be able to get a decent handle on the basics.

Also, we have to ask how do we encourage more STEM type students to go into politics? Why become an MP when you could join Nomura or Google and be earning over the average MP's salary by the time you're 30? It is a tough question, do we appeal to the idea of civic duty or do we need to pay our MP's more in order to encourage the best and brightest into this kind of work?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes HF - but that's where you have a vocational student presumably applying for 'non vocational' student job.

I don't think it would work at all the other way around.

That said, so called 'soft skills' aren't the preserve of just the non-vocational set although I would accept that the ability to form say a cohesive argument about characters in Shakespeare albeit based purely on fiction is a skill that can be migrated elsewhere! The problem however the UK repeatedly gets into in the modern world  (Covid by example) where decisions are based on statistics or to use the medical phrase 'evidence based' (c.f. homeopathy) and numerical data is the lack of any mathematical, statistical, science understanding in our largely 'non-vocational /STEM' based politicians or public at large. Simpy beyond them! Having to explain exponential growth I seem to recall was a classic!

Actually the particular discussion with the students I had in mind when writing this was specifically in relation to IT jobs which they claimed were being won by arts and humanities students. No doubt there are many jobs which do require a specific advanced knowledge base (medicine etc), but the vast majority still don't. I've nothing at all against vocational degrees, but I do think it would be a big error to think we should be filling our universities with them at the expense of courses that develop the wider abilities required for a successful life. Also the rapid development of AI looks like it is going to radically reduce the number of human workers required for a whole range of vocations. We live in precarious times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Actually the particular discussion with the students I had in mind when writing this was specifically in relation to IT jobs which they claimed were being won by arts and humanities students. No doubt there are many jobs which do require a specific advanced knowledge base (medicine etc), but the vast majority still don't. I've nothing at all against vocational degrees, but I do think it would be a big error to think we should be filling our universities with them at the expense of courses that develop the wider abilities required for a successful life. Also the rapid development of AI looks like it is going to radically reduce the number of human workers required for a whole range of vocations. We live in precarious times.

I don't disagree - but I just wish there was more numeracy out there else AI will keep us a 'pets' and make all the real decisions itself!

We do possibly have too any 'wobbly' degrees in subjects where an apprenticeship would be better. Horses for courses.

Edited by Yellow Fever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Actually the particular discussion with the students I had in mind when writing this was specifically in relation to IT jobs which they claimed were being won by arts and humanities students. No doubt there are many jobs which do require a specific advanced knowledge base (medicine etc), but the vast majority still don't. I've nothing at all against vocational degrees, but I do think it would be a big error to think we should be filling our universities with them at the expense of courses that develop the wider abilities required for a successful life. Also the rapid development of AI looks like it is going to radically reduce the number of human workers required for a whole range of vocations. We live in precarious times.

Much of that is due to HR departments often doing the bulk of the hiring process, especially the earlier stages, and they are predominantly staffed by people who have degrees rather than the specific skills required for the job. As such they tend to prioritise the style of writing that they learned at uni when sifting through applications, which means those who also went to uni and were taught to use the same words and phrases tend to get through to the later stages at the expense of others who maybe learned the skills vocationally who have a different writing style. Once you reach the interview stage this advantage often disappears as the process tends to move on to managers who prioritise which skills you know but it’s definitely an advantage in getting through the initial cull. 

This is the reason I got a family member who works in HR to write my CV. My old one listed skills and experience, whereas my new one to me says a whole load of nothing and is just full of generic phrases and buzzwords, but it’s much more successful at getting through those early sifting stages especially with the larger firms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

 

This is the reason I got a family member who works in HR to write my CV. My old one listed skills and experience, whereas my new one to me says a whole load of nothing and is just full of generic phrases and buzzwords, but it’s much more successful at getting through those early sifting stages especially with the larger firms. 

Not just larger firms.  The civil service, for instance, favours the 'tell me about a time when...one time, at band camp' style questions over a list of what you did and when.  Personally I don't like it as it favours the best storytellers over those with practical skills and encourages the creation of a homogenous workforce of 'talkers, not doers'  and I think it is going out of favour.

That being said although I hire into vocational positions where technical knowledge is a must I do quite like seeing history on a cv as it tells me thar person realises that an argument without evidence is not an argument at all and is used to dealing with uncertainty, bias and differing opinions.

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Not just larger firms.  The civil service, for instance, favours the 'tell me about a time when...one time, at band camp' style questions over a list of what you did and when.  Personally I don't like it as it favours the best storytellers over those with practical skills and encourages the creation of a homogenous workforce of 'talkers, not doers'  and I think it is going out of favour.

That being said although I hire into vocational positions where technical knowledge is a must I do quite like seeing history on a cv as it tells me thar person realises that an argument without evidence is not an argument at all and is used to dealing with uncertainty, bias and differing opinions.

It was certainly an eye opener, and it was only by chance that I was having a moan that she offered to tart it up for me.

At the time I genuinely couldn’t understand why I wasn’t even getting past the first stages, then after she’d added the words that HR like to see it got through most times, even though to my eyes my the new CV doesn’t actually say anything of any note, it’s a generic piece of paper that could describe almost any industry rather than the one I’ve been doing for the past few decades.

Horses for courses I suppose, in the old days it was an upper class cut glass accent that gave you a leg up, these days it’s knowing which phrases catch the eye of the humanities graduates that staff HR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Not just larger firms.  The civil service, for instance, favours the 'tell me about a time when...one time, at band camp' style questions over a list of what you did and when.  Personally I don't like it as it favours the best storytellers over those with practical skills and encourages the creation of a homogenous workforce of 'talkers, not doers'  and I think it is going out of favour.

That being said although I hire into vocational positions where technical knowledge is a must I do quite like seeing history on a cv as it tells me thar person realises that an argument without evidence is not an argument at all and is used to dealing with uncertainty, bias and differing opinions.

I have an admission to make BB. Many many decades ago when saving for my first flat (in London) I moonlighted with a recruitment agency. 

Job was to take 50 or so CVs over a week or two and an add an opening paragraph highlighting the then buzz words (real time programming etc) or pertinent experience. A quick synopsis to sell the candidate. Apparently I was quite good. The art of spin.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...