http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... tists-warn


Not just chemistry. It applies to all the sciences.

Every sector that is going to be hit or has all ready been hit by cuts is crying out saying they will do irreparable damage. Considering the state of the public finances something has to give so what's it going to be. We cant continue with the spending that went on before because it was unsustainable and the financial markets just wont let it continue.

Yes but would you rather them provide decent graduates for businesses or fund a white elephant that they cannot use?

Just my preference, but I suggest we make the financial markets 'give', given it was them who did all the chuffing damage in the first place. If you cut funding to research at the beginning of a recession (and anyone who thinks we're even half way out of this one is a fool) you've got nothing anybody wants to buy by the peak of the next one, so you're stuffed for a whole cycle.

Invest in research when even highly qualified labour is cheap (i.e. now) and reap the rewards later. Don't and find yourself doing the macroeconomic equivalent of flipping burgers for a generation.

Jon

I agree but it will never happen. You only have to look at the Tories donations to see that they got more than half of their funding from the banks so they will not bite the hand that feeds them.

If the Chancellor kills off growth then the markets will punish the Treasury anyway - just slashing public spending for the sake of it won't achieve anything.

Maybe we should stop sending "aid" to places like India and spend that on supporting research in this country.

or look at the Labour that don't receive funding from "bankers" and look at how they kept the financial sector in check, enforcing strict standards that would help prevent financial meltdown.. oh they didnt. Or have campaigned against every cut/proposed cut and yet have admitted they would have to have done cuts amounting to at least 30% of what the coalition have done/are about to do but wont say where they would have made the cuts. But that is the safety of opposition just campaign against everything the incumbents do, so come the next election you can say "we didn't want that to happen".
That is the problem when you isolate each individual "cut" their is a rational reason why it shouldn't be made but the reality in the whole some cuts need to be made, whether we like it or not. For someones pet project/cause to get the funding it "deserves" something else has to give.

or look at the Labour that don't receive funding from "bankers" and look at how they kept the financial sector in check, enforcing strict standards that would help prevent financial meltdown.. oh they didnt. Or have campaigned against every cut/proposed cut and yet have admitted they would have to have done cuts amounting to at least 30% of what the coalition have done/are about to do but wont say where they would have made the cuts. But that is the safety of opposition just campaign against everything the incumbents do, so come the next election you can say "we didn't want that to happen".
That is the problem when you isolate each individual "cut" their is a rational reason why it shouldn't be made but the reality in the whole some cuts need to be made, whether we like it or not. For someones pet project/cause to get the funding it "deserves" something else has to give.

Labour did get money from the banks but not as much as the Tories. The fact that they did not regulate as well was because they did what the city wanted. It was regulatory capture. That still exists under this coalition. Until the banks are broken up we will still have banks that are too big to fail and too big to save.

As to Labours cuts they actually had a growing economy and now we have one that is stagnating. The Tories were supposed to be the party of Law and order but they are back on their tax cuts for the super rich plan already. The reason for cutting services is that the rich rarely use them so they do not want to pay for something for others. They want their taxes cut. The economy will struggle for the next decade, longer if they mess up their policies, and we are stupid enough to vote them back in.

As for priorities they could have scrapped trident and saved the military from the cuts which mean we will can only offer token support to any overseas operation. I would want to see a nation where the burden was shared equally not on the backs of the poor. That route lies the way of revolution and civil war.