But I thought we wanted more apprenticeships?

The FT has reported that KPMG is planning to give up its graduate recruitment programme in the UK, and is instead planning to recruit before young people go to university. It is intending to take on 75 school leavers a year and send them on a four-year accountancy degree at Durham University, for this which KPMG will pay the costs,  and a salary.

Richard is, of course, against it. Which is really rather strange, for he\’s also said:

If the big business of this country cannot afford to train the workforce they need we have something very wrong with our priorities. And this is just the first of many such issues that will crowd in upon us as the right demand more and more cuts, and people will resist in ever greater numbers when it is glaringly obvious that we have the capacity to train people – just a lack of willing to demand the cash to do so from those who seek to retain it for the sole reason of increasing the gap between them and the rest of society.

So big business decides to train its workforce and yet there\’s still something wrong with it?

9 thoughts on “But I thought we wanted more apprenticeships?”

  1. Read Murphy long enough and one of the things that becomes very, very clear is this: Ritchie’s never managed to come to terms with the fact that none of the then Big 8 firms bothered to employ him after he graduated from university. Given that, it shouldn’t be surprising that he’d damn KPMG for this. Hell, he’d damn them if they hadn’t done it.

    Remember: It’s always about Ritchie…

  2. Not enough sweat involved. He’d be OK with it if they served their apprenticeship in some lower reach of the accountancy biz. Say, pencil-sharpening.

  3. Let’s take his 3 ‘thoughts’.

    If the people are going Durham Uni, they will be doing exactly the same course as a student who pays for themselves. Maybe they get to work in KPMG in the hols. instead of dossing or whatever students do now, but to presume that that are so thick as to have no personal criteria and that sponsorship is to brainwash. …

    No, dearie, it doesn’t, cos they ain’t preparing a brainwashing course for anybody. Now, not only does he not like business owners (‘cos they are all tax dodgers at heart) he has no faith in academics….

    Full marks to Durham. I’ll bet any input they get from KPMG is merely going to improve the quality of the course. Academics might be honest (shall we give them the benefit of the doubt, dearie?) but sometimes a little far from the coal face. If they are lucky the Uni and the Department and all the students might actually benefit.

    He is a measly-mouthed, small-minded, evil (cos he sees no good anywhere and always attributes the worst motives to any action) and incoherent (as Tim points out, not for the first time).

    I now understand why bloggers swear so much and use so many insults. But I am maintaining my standards (still) (just).

  4. Clear enough. Rikchard would be in favour of this if KPMG donated the money to government and they wasted half of it before training more art history majors

  5. ‘dearie’ refers to Ritchie not ‘dearieme’ whose comment I didn’t see before uploading. I’ll find another term for him.

  6. Dennis the Peasant:

    “Remember: It’s always about Ritchie…”

    And this is true about so many leftists. Stuck in an angry attitude of adolescent repudiation, more interested in fantasy than reality, politics for them is a form of therapy…

  7. This is nothing new. My mate at school over 20 years ago got a very similar deal. Might have been Arthur Andersen tho, not KPMG. It was at the very peak of the late 80s crash. There was an article in the Daily Mail about it. I’ve still got the cutting somewhere.

  8. A good idea that would be even better if taken further. I believe corporations could be persuaded to sponsor selective schools: for example, a sixth form specialising in quantitative subjects that is supported by computing and accounting firms looking for students to sponsor through further education.

  9. This is very good indeed. If, as we are constantly told, there are positive externalities to employers from a graduate-trained workforce, then its only fair they should bear the burden of the cost. Murphy bleats about ‘regulatory capture’* and ‘academic capture’ (whatever the hell that is) apparently out of fear that the poor little poppets will evade ‘Murphy capture’.


    * which does not mean what he seems to think it means, by no means an uncommon situation when it comes to our Dickie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *