You can tell everyone is getting election fatigue. This thread has entered its final stages as polling day draws near - the actual political debate is slowing and increasingly people are just posting funny memes, gifs and you tube clips.
We're all reverting to the default British state, outrage is fading and we're taking the piss instead.
I think everyone has made up their mind by now and is just waiting for the day to come and get it over with.
Would be interesting to hear from anyone who is still on the fence, if there are any. And what the last 24 hours or so have done to effect the way you plan to vote.
To return to the starting point, a 24 point lead in the polls, a need to call a pre brexit election because of political sabotage otherwise, even a need to validate Theresa May as Prime Minister, would a one seat majority do the trick (it is 12 at the moment)? In order to justify this election would maintaining a 12 seat majority do the trick also? The polls at the start suggested a majority north of 140 seats (sadly I think that is the real, and the doomsday possibility), so does Theresa May need to get, lets be generous, a 100 seat majority to achieve her stated aim? Is there a realistic line to reach? If the majority increases from 12 seats to 32 would that mean she has actually lost power and influence even with a bigger majority? In a 30 odd seat majority, is it legitimate to ask why we have had to endure all this malarkey? Of course a Tory win also risks a re adjustment in the opposition that might come back strongly when crushing austerity powers on, let alone if there is a 'no deal' brexit....or even if there is a deal, but such a supine one that the far right react with venom? I will stick my neck out and suggest that a 30 seat majority means that Theresa May has not got the power she thinks she has, a 70 seat majority can be explained away as taking on a weak and shattered Labour party, I think that the Tories need about a 100 seat majority to get through this Election properly, but that will bring on a stronger opposition in the future, coupled with the huge risk of brexit failure to hang round their necks. I think any kind of hung Parliament is as likely as Gibraltar winning the next Euro's.
It will be interesting to see what the popular vote is. There are suggestions that the Labour vote in safe Labour seats in London will increase. In the article posted by Prague it is suggested Labour might poll close to its 1997 levels. If she polls less than 50% can she really say the country is united behind her?
To return to the starting point, a 24 point lead in the polls, a need to call a pre brexit election because of political sabotage otherwise, even a need to validate Theresa May as Prime Minister, would a one seat majority do the trick (it is 12 at the moment)? In order to justify this election would maintaining a 12 seat majority do the trick also? The polls at the start suggested a majority north of 140 seats (sadly I think that is the real, and the doomsday possibility), so does Theresa May need to get, lets be generous, a 100 seat majority to achieve her stated aim? Is there a realistic line to reach? If the majority increases from 12 seats to 32 would that mean she has actually lost power and influence even with a bigger majority? In a 30 odd seat majority, is it legitimate to ask why we have had to endure all this malarkey? Of course a Tory win also risks a re adjustment in the opposition that might come back strongly when crushing austerity powers on, let alone if there is a 'no deal' brexit....or even if there is a deal, but such a supine one that the far right react with venom? I will stick my neck out and suggest that a 30 seat majority means that Theresa May has not got the power she thinks she has, a 70 seat majority can be explained away as taking on a weak and shattered Labour party, I think that the Tories need about a 100 seat majority to get through this Election properly, but that will bring on a stronger opposition in the future, coupled with the huge risk of brexit failure to hang round their necks. I think any kind of hung Parliament is as likely as Gibraltar winning the next Euro's.
It will be interesting to see what the popular vote is. There are suggestions that the Labour vote in safe Labour seats in London will increase. In the article posted by Prague it is suggested Labour might poll close to its 1997 levels. If she polls less than 50% can she really say the country is united behind her?
“We have already delivered 2.2 million new apprenticeships over the last five years. Over the next five years we will deliver three million more and ensure they deliver the skills employers need”
Conservative Party manifesto, 2015.
BBC Reality Check The claim: Since 2010, the government has revived the culture of apprenticeships by creating two million new places and will create another three million by 2020. Reality Check verdict: There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships created in England under the coalition government between 2010-11 and 2014-2015. Under the Conservative government in 2015-16, there were 509,400 new apprenticeships in England, 9,500 more than the previous year. The report points out that the growth has been driven by an increase in the number of apprenticeships available to people aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16. The number of women starting apprenticeships has been higher than men in every year in that period. In 2015-16, women started 53% of apprenticeships and men 47%. In 2015/16, the top three sectors, which made up 71% of new apprenticeships, were in three categories: business, administration and law; health, public service and care; and retail and commercial enterprises.
I'd want to dig a bit deeper and find out more about the reality of these 'apprenticeships' - of which the article tells us "71% of new apprenticeships, were in three categories: business, administration and law; health, public service and care; and retail and commercial enterprises".
I began my working life many years ago as an apprentice and like most apprenticeships at that time it lasted for 5 years. As far as I'm aware the term can now apply to any 'training' that an employee supposedly undergoes for their job. And, crucially, while they're undergoing this training - even if they're "aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16" - for the first year of this 'training' they are only entitled to less than half of the statutory minimum/'living' wage; as set out in the link below:
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I left uni with a lot of debt which is now paid off and have my own home in the New Forest. The money you pay back is minimal. If your salary is 25k (just under £1700 a month take home) you pay back a whopping £30 a month, it hardly breaks the bank.
Let's say you leave uni with £30k debt. You earn £25k a year for the next 30 years. You will only pay £10.8k of that debt back.
I think everyone has made up their mind by now and is just waiting for the day to come and get it over with.
Would be interesting to hear from anyone who is still on the fence, if there are any. And what the last 24 hours or so have done to effect the way you plan to vote.
I was still undecided. Local issues were going to play a big part for me this time around.
As I said earlier, The local Tory MP has just condoned the closure of a local hospital!
Hypothetical question: would (or should) Labour do a deal with the SNP if there was a hung parliament?
Soft Brexit in return for abandoning another independence referendum?
Basically a coalition with the SNP is the only way Corbyn will get into number 10 as he obviously isn't getting a majority.
Any Labour supporter here would surely say yes?
I would let the conservatives go in to a minority government and let them reap what they have sown in brexit. Every chance they would not be elected again for a generation, plus couldn't do much damage with a minority government.
“We have already delivered 2.2 million new apprenticeships over the last five years. Over the next five years we will deliver three million more and ensure they deliver the skills employers need”
Conservative Party manifesto, 2015.
BBC Reality Check The claim: Since 2010, the government has revived the culture of apprenticeships by creating two million new places and will create another three million by 2020. Reality Check verdict: There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships created in England under the coalition government between 2010-11 and 2014-2015. Under the Conservative government in 2015-16, there were 509,400 new apprenticeships in England, 9,500 more than the previous year. The report points out that the growth has been driven by an increase in the number of apprenticeships available to people aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16. The number of women starting apprenticeships has been higher than men in every year in that period. In 2015-16, women started 53% of apprenticeships and men 47%. In 2015/16, the top three sectors, which made up 71% of new apprenticeships, were in three categories: business, administration and law; health, public service and care; and retail and commercial enterprises.
Anyone old enough to remember (like me!) can recall what real apprenticeships were - indentured time-served five year programmes that resulted in truly learning a trade.
It's total bullshit to call what the government now do apprenticeships - they are glorified paper chases leading to low level NVQs. Even though we are paying shed loads of money as part of the apprenticeship levy (0.5% of total payroll) I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Our internal training and development programmes are far more effective.
Well said Bob and Thatcher got rid of the proper apprentices, and now 25 years later people wonder why there are very few trades people around and we have to rely on imported workers!
To return to the starting point, a 24 point lead in the polls, a need to call a pre brexit election because of political sabotage otherwise, even a need to validate Theresa May as Prime Minister, would a one seat majority do the trick (it is 12 at the moment)? In order to justify this election would maintaining a 12 seat majority do the trick also? The polls at the start suggested a majority north of 140 seats (sadly I think that is the real, and the doomsday possibility), so does Theresa May need to get, lets be generous, a 100 seat majority to achieve her stated aim? Is there a realistic line to reach? If the majority increases from 12 seats to 32 would that mean she has actually lost power and influence even with a bigger majority? In a 30 odd seat majority, is it legitimate to ask why we have had to endure all this malarkey? Of course a Tory win also risks a re adjustment in the opposition that might come back strongly when crushing austerity powers on, let alone if there is a 'no deal' brexit....or even if there is a deal, but such a supine one that the far right react with venom? I will stick my neck out and suggest that a 30 seat majority means that Theresa May has not got the power she thinks she has, a 70 seat majority can be explained away as taking on a weak and shattered Labour party, I think that the Tories need about a 100 seat majority to get through this Election properly, but that will bring on a stronger opposition in the future, coupled with the huge risk of brexit failure to hang round their necks. I think any kind of hung Parliament is as likely as Gibraltar winning the next Euro's.
It will be interesting to see what the popular vote is. There are suggestions that the Labour vote in safe Labour seats in London will increase. In the article posted by Prague it is suggested Labour might poll close to its 1997 levels. If she polls less than 50% can she really say the country is united behind her?
It will certainly be spun that way.
But will people swallow it? Given that they've made big deal about 52% representing a clear majority for brexit, it would be pretty big double standard, but we are talking about politicians here.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I left uni with a lot of debt which is now paid off and have my own home in the New Forest. The money you pay back is minimal. If your salary is 25k (just under £1700 a month take home) you pay back a whopping £30 a month, it hardly breaks the bank.
Let's say you leave uni with £30k debt. You earn £25k a year for the next 30 years. You will only pay £10.8k of that debt back.
But you are highly unlikely to stay on a stain wage for 30 years, so you will pay back more/all, but very interesting to hear the level of repayment and it doesn't seem to have stopped you buying your own home.
Hypothetical question: would (or should) Labour do a deal with the SNP if there was a hung parliament?
Soft Brexit in return for abandoning another independence referendum?
Yes. But, if the Tories are unable to win a majority it means the mandate for Brexit has been lost (that is what May said the election was about) and the new coalition government should agree to revoke article 50 and then we can all forget about this sorry Brexit nightmare fiasco.
I voted remain but that is a ridiculous argument. Brexit was democratically voted by the UK electorate. It can't just be forgotten - losing our democracy is one of the most dangerous things that could happen to us.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
Hypothetical question: would (or should) Labour do a deal with the SNP if there was a hung parliament?
Soft Brexit in return for abandoning another independence referendum?
Yes. But, if the Tories are unable to win a majority it means the mandate for Brexit has been lost (that is what May said the election was about) and the new coalition government should agree to revoke article 50 and then we can all forget about this sorry Brexit nightmare fiasco.
I voted remain but that is a ridiculous argument. Brexit was democratically voted by the UK electorate. It can't just be forgotten - losing our democracy is one of the most dangerous things that could happen to us.
Actually, that's five more years of the Tories ;-)
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I left uni with a lot of debt which is now paid off and have my own home in the New Forest. The money you pay back is minimal. If your salary is 25k (just under £1700 a month take home) you pay back a whopping £30 a month, it hardly breaks the bank.
Let's say you leave uni with £30k debt. You earn £25k a year for the next 30 years. You will only pay £10.8k of that debt back.
But you are highly unlikely to stay on a stain wage for 30 years, so you will pay back more/all, but very interesting to hear the level of repayment and it doesn't seem to have stopped you buying your own home.
True, you're not but even on 50k, it's only 100quid a month repayment. It's really not the big deal it's made out to be.
You don't pay until you earn 21k, it expires after 30years and it MIGHT even come out at source so potential for less tax to be paid.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I left uni with a lot of debt which is now paid off and have my own home in the New Forest. The money you pay back is minimal. If your salary is 25k (just under £1700 a month take home) you pay back a whopping £30 a month, it hardly breaks the bank.
Let's say you leave uni with £30k debt. You earn £25k a year for the next 30 years. You will only pay £10.8k of that debt back.
But you are highly unlikely to stay on a stain wage for 30 years, so you will pay back more/all, but very interesting to hear the level of repayment and it doesn't seem to have stopped you buying your own home.
True, you're not but even on 50k, it's only 100quid a month repayment. It's really not the big deal it's made out to be.
You don't pay until you earn 21k, it expires after 30years and it MIGHT even come out at source so potential for less tax to be paid.
OK and suppose you have a job in London. Suppose you live somewhere modest like Eltham. Rental costs as you move up the ladder to 50k? How do you save for a deposit on the flat you might want to buy? Can you get a mortgage for a flat in Eltham if 50k is all you are earning? And can you afford the repayments when you have to add that 100k-month on top?
BTW I just realised that you surely didn't leave Uni with anything like the debt that we are saddling the current generation with because the new 27k fees only kicked in two years ago.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
On 'entitlement' when ever i've answered the 'it was alright for you' and said I didn't go on a two week holiday to greece I have often had thrown back 'why shouldn't I, I work' much like why not save and buy a £1,000 car rather than borrow £15k and buy a new car all you get is 'why shouldn't I'...... we've built a society which is largely built around wanting something now and paying for it in the future.
I know 25 year olds who have bought a £375k house by saving, living well within their means and sometimes taking a second job. A lad who worked for me about 10 years ago got himself into living on the 'never never' I helped him sort that out, he sold his 1 year old car and I found him an older one for £700, he reduced his spending and guess what....... he brought in a packed lunch! It took him about 18 months to get himself back to even again and pay off the debts he'd built up, another 2-3 years of really managing his money and doing a second job (he found a great one at festivals helping run a burger stall, so he got to see all the gigs for free). He saved enough to get the deposit together in that time and now owns a very nice 3 bed semi in Bexleyheath. In some respects I feel guilty that he may have taken the being frugal too far, he still uses daily the expenditure spreadsheet I gave him, he's paying down his mortgage quicker, he's using his money wisely and even buys newer cars again (once he's saved for one), he's always proud to tell me when we catch up that he still has no debt apart from his mortgage, no car loans, no outstanding credit card bills etc.
I don't think the monthly cost once a house is bought is any different now to 1993. I bought a house around that time, interest rates meant a mortgage then was about 700. That same house now has gone up a little under 500% and the mortgage is roughly double at 1400 (both assuming a 10% deposit). The job I did then will at least have doubled in salary, net take home more than doubled as taxation at the lower end is less than back then.
As to where does all the money go...... god only knows, I certainly don't.... but I haven't seen any opposition parties saying that theres all this wastage somewhere, maybe it's rose tinted specs but I don't recall things like child tax credits, working tax credits etc? You'd need a detailed breakdown on expenditure of the country to delve into it.However in 1993 we spent circa 42bn on welfare, it's now over 120bn, is that just following inflation? Not sure.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
New cars. Drive around the UK & try and find a car with a plate older than 8 years old. Figures out last week showed that loans to buy cars on "balloon payment" finance is the highest its ever been. When I started to drive (30 yrs ago) a lot of people drove old cars & youngsters bought bangers - not anymore. A typical monthly payment is around £250 pm & I know people paying almost £500 pm
Not knowing what house prices there are Prague, I have no idea? Quick Google says average flat is 268k. 50k salary per year inc student loan is 2900 take home. So yes, that is do-able even while moving up the ladder.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
New cars. Drive around the UK & try and find a car with a plate older than 8 years old. Figures out last week showed that loans to buy cars on "balloon payment" finance is the highest its ever been. When I started to drive (30 yrs ago) a lot of people drove old cars & youngsters bought bangers - not anymore. A typical monthly payment is around £250 pm & I know people paying almost £500 pm
Pop down to your local council offices Golfie. Plenty of older cars in the staff car park there. My own is third hand and 12 years old btw. We aren't all driving Jags.
A lot of us, myself included, would quite like to trade in our cars for newer models. But as I've said on this thread recently, in my workplace we are just about to have yet another round of redundancies. So people are sitting on their savings for things like new cars, building work, holidays, etc, just in case that money is needed to pay the mortgage for a few months.
Not knowing what house prices there are Prague, I have no idea? Quick Google says average flat is 268k. 50k salary per year inc student loan is 2900 take home. So yes, that is do-able even while moving up the ladder.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
Why are we using the £50k as a benchmark salary here? It's about double the national average, which is itself pushed up by London wages. You know as well as I do Polo that the amount of young people earning that amount in this area is extremely limited. In fact don't we have one of the highest house price to average earnings ratio in the country around here?
I think everything that is wrong with the Tories can be summarised in May's statement that if the abolishing human rights stops terrorists she will do it. She is playing on people's fears. She has been home secretary for 6 years and Prime Minister for long enough to know what aspect of human rights legislation is getting in the way of stopping terrorists. Why the if? Why not say what the legislation in question is - hasn't she had a chance to work it out? And they have had 7 years to change legislation, and committed to it in their referendum and suddenly decide to make this vague announcement days before the vote. She has mentioned alongside that things that can already be done within our existing laws! We need to examine the details and learn lessons. And we need to give the police the powers to do their jobs and protect us.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn the lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.
£42bn spent on welfare in 1993 inflated is now £80bn but we spend 120bn so theres 40bn extra, sounds a lot 'extra' to me?
Sounds like the increased cost of the state pension to me.
Quite possibly, as we know we are all living longer etc etc. Was simply trying to see some easy to find numbers of 'where the money has gone' in answer to Prague. Even still, 40bn sounds an awful lot and can't be purely on pensions?
Comments
We're all reverting to the default British state, outrage is fading and we're taking the piss instead.
Would be interesting to hear from anyone who is still on the fence, if there are any. And what the last 24 hours or so have done to effect the way you plan to vote.
I began my working life many years ago as an apprentice and like most apprenticeships at that time it lasted for 5 years. As far as I'm aware the term can now apply to any 'training' that an employee supposedly undergoes for their job. And, crucially, while they're undergoing this training - even if they're "aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16" - for the first year of this 'training' they are only entitled to less than half of the statutory minimum/'living' wage; as set out in the link below:
https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
So I think the reality of many of these 'apprenticeships' is that they are devices to get cheap labour below the minimum/'living' wage rate.
Let's say you leave uni with £30k debt. You earn £25k a year for the next 30 years. You will only pay £10.8k of that debt back.
As I said earlier, The local Tory MP has just condoned the closure of a local hospital!
Mind made up.
What a man Coogan is
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059
2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
You don't pay until you earn 21k, it expires after 30years and it MIGHT even come out at source so potential for less tax to be paid.
BTW I just realised that you surely didn't leave Uni with anything like the debt that we are saddling the current generation with because the new 27k fees only kicked in two years ago.
I know 25 year olds who have bought a £375k house by saving, living well within their means and sometimes taking a second job. A lad who worked for me about 10 years ago got himself into living on the 'never never' I helped him sort that out, he sold his 1 year old car and I found him an older one for £700, he reduced his spending and guess what....... he brought in a packed lunch! It took him about 18 months to get himself back to even again and pay off the debts he'd built up, another 2-3 years of really managing his money and doing a second job (he found a great one at festivals helping run a burger stall, so he got to see all the gigs for free). He saved enough to get the deposit together in that time and now owns a very nice 3 bed semi in Bexleyheath. In some respects I feel guilty that he may have taken the being frugal too far, he still uses daily the expenditure spreadsheet I gave him, he's paying down his mortgage quicker, he's using his money wisely and even buys newer cars again (once he's saved for one), he's always proud to tell me when we catch up that he still has no debt apart from his mortgage, no car loans, no outstanding credit card bills etc.
I don't think the monthly cost once a house is bought is any different now to 1993. I bought a house around that time, interest rates meant a mortgage then was about 700. That same house now has gone up a little under 500% and the mortgage is roughly double at 1400 (both assuming a 10% deposit). The job I did then will at least have doubled in salary, net take home more than doubled as taxation at the lower end is less than back then.
As to where does all the money go...... god only knows, I certainly don't.... but I haven't seen any opposition parties saying that theres all this wastage somewhere, maybe it's rose tinted specs but I don't recall things like child tax credits, working tax credits etc? You'd need a detailed breakdown on expenditure of the country to delve into it.However in 1993 we spent circa 42bn on welfare, it's now over 120bn, is that just following inflation? Not sure.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
http://inflation.stephenmorley.org
£42bn spent on welfare in 1993 inflated is now £80bn but we spend 120bn so theres 40bn extra, sounds a lot 'extra' to me?
A lot of us, myself included, would quite like to trade in our cars for newer models. But as I've said on this thread recently, in my workplace we are just about to have yet another round of redundancies. So people are sitting on their savings for things like new cars, building work, holidays, etc, just in case that money is needed to pay the mortgage for a few months.
It is to deflect from the conclusions that can be logically made about police numbers and resources. If we want to stop people having the power of free speech we might not even get the clues that were give to us from the Channel 4 programme for instance. We already have strong laws to protect brainwashing and grooming - these are done outside of the law. We need to learn the lessons - why did the police not deal with these potential terrorists appropriately - more likely to be around resources than legislation that tehprime minister can't give a specific example of how it affects things.
Opportunist and disgusting. We won't defeat terrorism by ripping up our rights.
Dropped my wife into school this morning - she was telling me they were losing two teachers and not replacing them due to budget cuts. That is the other reality of the tories.