Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
BBC salaries are in the news again. They really do need to do away with the licence fee.

The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.

Kent County Council pays some of it's councillors more than the PM.

Yet Das Daily Heil and The Scum aren't getting their knickers in a twist over that.

No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

Why not? Many public sector workers are actually competent at their jobs

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

There is an argument that no-one anywhere at all should get more than say, £250,000.

I mean we can all point fingers at the BBC, but the fact is lots of people ranging from footballers to company executives to university vice-chancellors, not to mention bankers, are on massive pay. We know that if we admit it to ourselves. It's only the BBC that has been forced to publish it.

My wife's quite angry over the amount of money that Chris Evans gets, but having a go at him doesn't solve the overall problem

We have in some sense chosen to live in a society in which a small number of people get a very large amount of money.

I'm all for changing that.

There's also the consideration of screentime.

I was surprised Claudia 'no discernible talent' Winkelman is the highest paid female presenter. But not terribly surprised that she's paid far less than Chris 'heyday long gone' Evans.

But, who has the more screen/air time in a given week?

Ms Winkelman seems to do The Great British Sewing Bee, and some Makover show is upcoming. Plus I think she still stotts about on Strictly Come Wasting The License Fee. Two hours of Radio on a Friday, and a two hour show on a Sunday, plus some cover work for other presenters.

Mr Evans? Heads up the flagship Radio 2 Breakfast show. 3 hours on-air, five days a week. So he's doing nearly four times the radio work. Plus assorted TV things (his wiki isn't as neatly laid out as Ms Winkelman).

Of course, there'll be show planning and stuff in addition to the on-air hours, but it seems that Mr Evans does indeed do far more work for the Beeb than Ms Winkelman. So it's not necessarily a gender based paygap there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

There is an argument that no-one anywhere at all should get more than say, £250,000.

I mean we can all point fingers at the BBC, but the fact is lots of people ranging from footballers to company executives to university vice-chancellors, not to mention bankers, are on massive pay. We know that if we admit it to ourselves. It's only the BBC that has been forced to publish it.

My wife's quite angry over the amount of money that Chris Evans gets, but having a go at him doesn't solve the overall problem

We have in some sense chosen to live in a society in which a small number of people get a very large amount of money.

I'm all for changing that.

There is a lot of truth to this. The BBC are only trying to keep up with current prices people get paid for entertaining us. Sky, BT, Virgin, ITV almost certainly pay their top talent similar amounts of money. If BBC capped their wages to something sensible (lets say £50k) then anyone good would leave and you'd be left with the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Savage reading the news.

Really this is deflection from the real issue, which as stated, is that some people are paid well over the odds for what as an individual they really give back and that in effect greed is becoming more prevalent and status simply based on wealth generation. If you had a sensible tax regime that significantly increased (I'm of the opinion tax should be a cubic system) with the more money you earned then it would significantly discourage over paying as there was little benefit in doing so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

Why not? Many public sector workers are actually competent at their jobs

Yeah, who saw TM at PMQ tell Labour that they never introduced anything similar to the living wage....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-schools-theresa-may-over-national-minimum-wage-tories-opposed_uk_596f53c6e4b0000eb1975c4b?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&utm_hp_ref=uk


-----

Anyway I think we are missing the bigger point in the news today. They've just announced that the state pension will be put to 68 from 2037

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/state-pension-age-will-rise-to-68-from-2037-government-announces_uk_596f5806e4b00db3d0f48f47?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

So if you are 47 you now have to work that bit longer (assuming there is any state pension by that point!, or a word for that matter).

Pension age is being raised to 68, and that's people older than me. I fully expect to be told I have to work until 70 within the next 10 years.

Can you seriously imagine me teaching secondary pupils until I'm 70? Rather unlikely.

But of course the government know damn well people can't work into their late sixties in many jobs. It's the pension age that's being raised, you can stop work any time you like. All they want is for people to pay for their own unemployment for longer before the pension kicks in. Obviously for some, this will mean great hardship.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No public sector worker anywhere should earn more than the prime minister.

Why not? Private sector jobs doing the same exact thing can pay many times that. You have to pay for quality, like any other origination. Besides, why should the PM get payed a lot? They don't need it. Even our president earns slightly less than $200K a year. It's not a job you are supposed to be in for the money.

Edit: especially if that job generates in revenue more than it's paid in salary (which being the BBC, I assume it does).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
BBC salaries are in the news again. They really do need to do away with the licence fee.

The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.

They're not public sector workers. They're employed by a business that is state-owned. Taxes don't fund the BBC and people should really stop getting carried away with what the 'taxpayer' thinks. People that pay for the BBC service pay for the BBC's employees. I got a TV license two weeks ago. I'm a taxpayer (well, actually I'm exempt just now, but that's besides the point!), but I haven't contributed to the BBC for about fifteen years.

I don't see a problem with women being paid more.

It's like the argument that public sector workers should have a bad salary increase because they have a great pension scheme compared to the private sector. Why tolerate the private sector having crappy pension schemes?

Disclosure: My daughter is female and will be a woman worker in a few years.

To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land. They are were the buck is ultimately supposed to stop. They have the greatest responsibilities. Ergo, they should be paid the most. The others are supposed to be subordinate to the PM, and I highly doubt that any head of a council will have the same burden as the PM. And to be perfectly frank, if 100k a year to head up a council isn't enough for you to do it, you probably shouldn't be doing the job anyway because you're a greedy money grapping snout in the trough piece of gak.

And the license fee is a tax. Just like car tax is a tax. Not everyone is required to pay it but if you want to watch live T.V (or drive a car) you have to. They don't call it a tax, but it is.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.

In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.

And the license fee is a tax.

Nope.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land. They are were the buck is ultimately supposed to stop. They have the greatest responsibilities.

So judges, senior doctors and military commanders should be paid less than £150k? Being a politician (including the PM) is not a job, it's a political office. It requires no training or qualifications. The pay of the PM should have no bearing on any public sector workers pay. Prime ministers may be at the highest politician in the land, but they are not in charge of these people. They also do not have responsibility. The PM is not the CEO of the civil service. They are more like the chairman of the board of directors.

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.

In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.

I know about the concept of shared cabinet responsibility but the pm is the leader at the end of the day.

And the license fee is a tax.

Nope.

Really? It'll be great to go watch live tv without having to pay for it under threat of criminal prosecution then.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
To answer quick, the reason why no public sector worker should be paid more than the PM is because the PM is the supposed to be the highest public official in the land.

In our fast-becoming-presidential system they come across like that, but they're actually quite specifically not meant to be.

I know about the concept of shared cabinet responsibility but the pm is the leader at the end of the day.

True, but I rather see the whole cabinet on the same wage. In any case, I don't think that precludes other state employees from earning more. Some jobs people actually need experience and qualifications for. A chief justice or chief medical officer, for instance. I don't necesarily think they should earn more than the current PM salary, but I've no problem with them earning more than the position.

And the license fee is a tax.

Nope.

Really? It'll be great to go watch live tv without having to pay for it under threat of criminal prosecution then.

It's really not difficult to simply not use that service. It's no more a tax than a bus fare (well, to one of the handful of state owned services).

Actually it is different. If you don't pay for Sky or other subscriptions you won't end up in a criminal court. Unlike non payment of licence fee it's a civil matter. The licence fee being a criminal matter makes it more like a tax. However unlike tax licence fee debt is written off by bankruptcy and can be covered under an IVA. It's a bit of being nether fish nor fowl.

It's unfair and outdated. The fact that so many people go around it only reinforces this. It should be scrapped and replaced with a voluntary subscription.

I have some sympathy with your view, though I can find arguments in favour of the licence fee. However, whatever we think about it, the country has much bigger fish to fry this Parliament.

Political news today:

Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.
Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.
Significant increase in crime as police numbers drop to the lowest since 1985.
"Grade inflation" in the number of first class degrees awarded by UK universities.

With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!

Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.

He's clearly not proving to be as pliable as they were hoping. Expect at least two more 'leaks' over the next week to try and portray him as incompetent/clueless. It's actually pretty obvious by this stage of the game that a part of the EU (or a faction within it)'s strategy is to try and discredit the opposing negotiators at home to weaken their bargaining power. Hence we get daft things like the 'Look at this unprepared fool with no documents on the table in front of him' story bollocks (when they were in his case because only an idiot leaves their policy documents in front of a photographer). The barrage of crude propaganda against Davis emanating from Brussels right now is almost embarassing, it's so relentless and transparent.

It helps them that he's a Tory though, it means that there's a line of people positively slavering at the chance to circulate and guffaw at tales of supposed Conservative incompetence.

Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.

Did it ever leave it?

nareik wrote:
With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!

Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.

And also more want to engage and less to skive off lectures that were too early (as I did on occasion, and many others did).

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Second round of Brexit talks ends with David Davis bright and breezy, Barnier less chipper.

He's clearly not proving to be as pliable as they were hoping. Expect at least two more 'leaks' over the next week to try and portray him as incompetent/clueless. It's actually pretty obvious by this stage of the game that a part of the EU (or a faction within it)'s strategy is to try and discredit the opposing negotiators at home to weaken their bargaining power. Hence we get daft things like the 'Look at this unprepared fool with no documents on the table in front of him' story bollocks (when they were in his case because only an idiot leaves their policy documents in front of a photographer). The barrage of crude propaganda against Davis emanating from Brussels right now is almost embarassing, it's so relentless and transparent.

It helps them that he's a Tory though, it means that there's a line of people positively slavering at the chance to circulate and guffaw at tales of supposed Conservative incompetence.

Sir Vince Cable becomes head of the LDP and says he wants to position the party in the political centre ground.

Did it ever leave it?

No, I don't think it ever did, but the contrast with the resurgent Blue Tories and Red Labour is more apparent, perhaps

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-flounders-over-labours-police-funding-again-in-embarrassing-tv-interview-a3592656.html

Does she ever do her research, check her facts and prepare like the meant to be professional shadow minster she is?

Corbyn, just keep her away from solo interviews, and keep her of tv. She may be solid majority MP but she is not good in front o the cameras. .
she just is not the one for the face of the party role.

nareik wrote:
With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!

Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.

Ha!


I worked out that during my last year of University I was paying 200 pounds for each hour of teaching.


And that was if they even turned up on time, one hour lectures often ended up only being 45 minutes, it was a often a case that they were like "This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."

Waste of bloody time.

I think for most humanities subjects, any sufficiently motivated person can easily acquire the skills with or without the degree. All they ultimately provide is a reading list, pointers on how the field breaks down, a proofreading service, and a place to discuss the things studied. All valuable things to be sure, but certainly not worth the vast sums of money expended.

Ultimately, humanities students are simply cashcows subsidising the degrees of STEM students. And that's at the good universities. Someone my girlfriend knows was enthusiastically discussing with her their plans to go and do an undergrad in Film and TV studies at London Met the other day, and it was all she could do not to beg them to reconsider the poor life choice they were about to make.

 welshhoppo wrote:

nareik wrote:
With the sky rocketing fees, I'd hope the students at university these days get all the materials and support they need to get a first otherwise they are being ripped off!

Not sure whether to do a joking smiley or an angry smiley.

Ha!


I worked out that during my last year of University I was paying 200 pounds for each hour of teaching.


And that was if they even turned up on time, one hour lectures often ended up only being 45 minutes, it was a often a case that they were like "This is the basics, go teach yourself in your own time."

Waste of bloody time.

Yeah at some stages some courses had like 2-3 hours contact time a week max.
Rest was on you to do it.

Mine was higher hours but course demands required higher hours.

Yeah it was a law degree.


But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.

I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeah it was a law degree.


But the contact hours for that were awful, and we had to buy all our own books too.

I understand if you were in a science degree then that equipment is expensive, but the universities will literally get people's blood from stones if they can. Half the books could only be ordered from the on site shop and so on so forth.

Yep. Workshop/other fees. Book lists, pay for all own paper, and other gear your course needs yourself. Course they have a handy shop on campus...

Half the books cost a fortune and only use em for one semester.
And with new editions, second hand.. NOPE!

Law... That's a complex one... Books only get you so far, its not black and white.

Sometimes I feel like my degree was an expensive waste of time and money, Russell Group or not. Modern history. What the feth does that get you? Nothing.

Know the feeling at times, Creative Advertising...

However. Life lessons, living on own, budgeting, and more,
They are very handy skills to learn in a slightly safer environment than adult life outside Uni.