The question was, in part at least, rhetorical mate. Now I know this will attract the usual opprobrium from her disciples but I blame Thatcher and her attacks on teachers and the decimation of school playing fields and facilities. That probably did more to demotivate teachers than anything else.

I think you can look back now and see that it wasn't just the attacks on teachers: we have had 30 years of attacks on anyone working in the public sector – something that has been absolute grist to the mill for swathes of the country's newspapers.

Those in the public services are lazy, unskilled – so these jobs are really just a form of benefits – surly, rude, incompetent, corrupt and so on and so forth. Some, not realising the idiocy of their comments, espouse a view that the public sector isn't even 'the real world'.

It's been a useful myth to spread when you also wanted to spread the lie that private is always better than public.

What we are starting to see now – from G4S to A4e, Locog to Close Protection UK, Tesco to Poundstretcher, Barclays to HSBC, Southern Cross to Winterbourne View, [iNews of the World[/i to the [iDaily Mail[/i – is an indicator of just how some of the private sector behaves, is allowed to behave and has been encouraged to behave, by deregulation, the promotion of a greed-is-good culture, the demonisation of the poor and the unemployed, and three decades of constant attacks on the public sector, amongst other things.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is that some people were (and are) so very keen to lap it all up; vicariously sticking their snouts into a trough of utter nastiness and inhumanity.

I think we need a smaller and more appropriate curriculum that allows teachers flexibility. I feel sorry for kids today I really do. We prescribe a massive curriculum, a lot of which is irrelevant to their lives, force them to sit down and basically memorise or simply copy what is being "taught" for hours every day, send them home with hours of homework, tell them off for being bored out of their skulls, set them exams, when they pass them we tell them theyre thick and the only reason they passed is because it's easy, send them off to university, then tell them their degrees are worthless, tell them to get a job, then if they get one we tell them they're no good in that job and they can't read, write or add up.
Then we wonder why some get p|ssed off and don't bother with school.

I think we maybe need a less broad curriculum (but possibly going deeper into some subject areas), a smaller curriculum to allow teachers time to do different things or allow more time for trips, events etc outside of school, and most importantly it needs to be far more relevant.

As for work, well the number of jobs available is always the biggest factor, but that's going to fluctuate. As mentioned on other threads, we need employers to go back to taking a long term view and to train employees on the job, not expect a 16 year old to immediately and miraculously have all the skills necessary.

Now [url=http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=35599this[/url really is taking the pi[is[/is

Not just your ordinary intern's "job", no sir. If you decide to apply for this baby, [url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/07/18/think-tank-in-city-wants-to-be-paid-for-a-job/you are expected to pay Civitatis for the privilege of working there[/url. £450 a month if you're a UK citizen, £750 a month if not. This is on top of living expenses etc. How this gets on to the W4MP ebsite is beyond me

You see, this is what I was talking about earlier - within a couple of decades we've gone from a position where employers EXPECTED to have to train young people via on-the-job experience or college courses (paid for by the employer), to a position where young people are EXPECTED to pay for their JOBS.

Expanding the principle slightly its probably not as stupid as it sounds as hundreds of thousands of 18 year olds will this year embark on three year university courses that will cost them a minimum of £9000 per year in the hope that at some point in the far distant future they will recoup that money (which most will have to borrow at an interest) through better employment, the evidence for which remains to be seen.